RURAL  SCHOOL  SURVEY 


R 

( 

I 

< 

y 

A 

1 

A  - 

1  r 

3213     Rural   school 

New  York 
state  • 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last 
date  stamped  below 


\-f)pdt<SL**-- 


»...->■.  • 


34Q 


L  B 


<J^. 


^^  s\     ^ti  i 


RN  BR 
felRARY 

at'LES,   C 


£a; 


oec  s  1-1968 


RURAL  SCHOOL  SURVEY 
of  NEW  YORK  STATE 


JOINT  COMMITTEE  ON  RURAL 
SCHOOLS 

State  Grange 

G.  W.  DUNN  MRS.  F.  GATES 

G.  C.  McNINCH 

Department  of  Education 

F.  B.  GILBERT  R.  P.  SNYDER 

G.  M.  WILEY 

Dairymen1 's  League 

E.  R.  EASTMAN,  Secretary  ALBERT  MANNING 

N.  F.  WEBB 


Farm  Bureau  Federation 
h.  c.  Mckenzie,  vice-chairman  w.  g.  Mcintosh 

C.  S.  POST  H.  G.  REED 


State  College  of  Agriculture 

J.  E.  BUTTERWORTH  P.  J.  KRUSE 

G.  A.  WORKS,  Chairman 
Home  Bureau  Federation 

MRS.  M.  E.  ARMSTRONG  MRS.  A.  E.  BRIGDEN 

MRS.  EDWARD  YOUNG 

State  Teachers'  Association 

J.  D.  JONES  MYRTLE  E.  MacDONALD 

W.  E.  PIERCE 


Committee  on  Direction 

G.  A.  WORKS,  Director 

MRS.  A.  E.  BRIGDEN,  Assistant  Director 
G.  M.  WILEY,  Assistant  Director 


RURAL  SCHOOL  SURVEY 
of  NEW  YORK  STATE 

SCHOOL  BUILDINGS  AND 
GROUNDS 


By 
JULIAN  E.   BUTTERWORTH 

PROFESSOR   OF    RURAL    EDUCATION 

CORNELL    UNIVERSITY 


Ithaca,  New  York 
1922 


Copyright,  1922,  by 
George  A.  Works 


WM-F-FELL  CO -PRINTERS 
PHILADELPHIA 


FOREWORD 

THIS  study  of  the  school  buildings  of  rural  communities  of 
New  York  state  should  be  suggestive  to  those  who  are  in- 
terested in,  or  responsible  for,  the  administration  of  rural 
'schools.    In  addition  to  presenting  a  body  of  suggestive  facts  Dr. 
r   Butterworth  has  made  two  valuable  contributions.    His  develop- 
fi  ment  of  a  score  card  that  is  especially  adapted  to  the  rating  of 
*,  the  small  school  building  should  be  of  material  assistance  to  rural 
school  superintendents.    Of  fundamental  importance  is  the  philoso- 
•  phy  of  administration  that  characterizes  his  discussion  of  improve- 
^  ment  of  school  facilities.    The  ideal  of  leadership  in  securing  better 
*    school   buildings  permeates  his  whole  discussion.     Its  significance 
is  likely  to  be  overlooked  by  the  school  administrator. 
This  survey  of  the  rural  schools  of  New  York  state  was  made 
/possible  by  the  Commonwealth  Fund.    This  Fund  not  only  fur- 
J  nished  the  money  for  the  conduct  of  the  survey,  but  also  bore  the 
'  expense  of  printing  the  results  of  the  studies.     A  complete  list  of 
Vy  the  reports  will  be  found  at  the  back  of  this  volume. 
J  Geo.  A.  Works 

Director 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

chap.  page 

Foreword 5 

Lists  of  Illustrations  and  Diagrams 9 

List  of  Tables 11 

I.  An  Analysis  of  Existing  Conditions 17 

A.  One-  and  Two-Teacher  Buildings 17 

1.  How  the  Facts  Were  Collected 17 

2.  A  General  Measure  of  These  Buildings 36 

3.  Problems  in  the  Use  of  These  General  Measures 38 

4.  Are  the  Types  of  Facilities  Provided  in  Accordance  with 

Modern  Hygienic  Requirements? 40 

5.  Are  the  Facilities  Provided  Such  as  Enable  the  School  to 

Perform  in  Full  Its  Function  in  the  Community? 60 

6.  Does  the  District  Keep  Its  Existing  Facilities  in  Such  Con- 

dition that  the  Maximum  of  Educational  Efficiency  May 

be  Secured? 65 

7.  In  What  Respects  Are  the  Buildings  Strong  and  in  What 

Are  They  Weak? 67 

8.  On  What  Points  do  the  Buildings  Receive  Additional  Credit?  67 

9.  Does  the  Community  Protect  Its  Property  Adequately?.  .  .  71 

B.  Buildings  with  Three  or  More  Teachers 71 

1.  How  the  Facts  Were  Collected 71 

2.  The  Scores 73 

3.  Some  General  Information 77 

4.  To  What  Extent  Are  Modern  Facilities  Provided? 79 

5.  In  What  Respects  Are  These  Buildings  Strong  and  in  What 

Are  They  Weak? 93 

II.  A  Program  of  Improvement 96 

A.  What  Are  the  Causes  of  Present  Conditions? 96 

1.  How  Representative  District  Superintendents  Analyze  the 

Situation 96 

2.  Causes  of  Present  Conditions  as  Revealed  by  Statistical 

Analysis 98 

B.  A  More  Enlightened  Public  Opinion  Needed 116 

C.  Higher  and  More  Definite  Minimum  Standards 121 

1.  The  Present  Situation 121 

2.  Proposed  Minimum  Standards  for  One-  and  Two-Teacher 

Buildings 126 

D.  Financial  Penalties  and  Rewards 127 

1.  A  Suggestion  of  Procedure 127 

2.  What  Would  It  Cost  to  Improve  a  Typical  One-Teacher 

Building? 129 

E.  Summarizing  Statement 129 

7 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


FACING 
PAGE 


Evidence  of  community  pride  in  its  school.  Canandaigua  No.  9,  Ontario  Co.     88 
One  type  of  recently  constructed  village  school  building.     Consolidated 

school  at  Orchard  Park,  Erie  Co 88 

An  illustration  of  a  poor  building  in  a  small  village 89 

What  one  community  did  through  community  cooperation 120 

What  No.  11,  Galway,  Saratoga  County,  did 121 


LIST  OF  DIAGRAMS 

DIAGRAM  PAGE 

1.  Every  school  building  in  communities  under  4,500  has  been  scored  in 

the  shaded  areas.     The  seven  sections  into  which  the  state  was  di- 
vided are  indicated  by  the  heavy  lines ! 15 

2.  Median  scores   for  one-  and   two-teacher  buildings.     The   essential 

standard  score  is  indicated  at  the  right  of  the  heavy  vertical  line;  the 
additional  score  to  the  left  of  this  line 38 

3.  Proportion  that  glass  area  is  of  floor  space  in  one-  and  two- teacher 

schools.     The  standard  is  at  least  1:5 41 

4.  Translucency  of  shades  in  one-  and  two- teacher  schools  as  indicated  by 

the  color 42 

5.  Window  placement  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools.     Light  from  one 

side  is  the  standard 44 

6.  Types  of  heating  apparatus  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 45 

7.  Drinking  facilities  and  towels  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 47 

8.  Oiled  floors  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 48 

9.  Methods  of  sweeping  and  dusting  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools ....  49 

10.  Kinds  of  toilets  in  one-  and  two- teacher  schools 51 

11.  Effectiveness  of  different  kinds  of  toilets  in  one-  and  two- teacher  schools  53 

12.  Types  of  pupils'  desks  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 56 

13.  Kinds  of  blackboard  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 57 

14.  Height  of  lowest  blackboard  in  one-teacher  schools.     The  dotted  line 

shows  suitable  height  when  there  is  but  one  height  of  blackboard ....      59 

15.  Percentage  of  one-  and  two-teacher  schools  having  a  playground  area 

equal  to  or  greater  than  the  amount  shown 61 

16.  Kinds  of  artificial  lighting  in  one-  and  two- teacher  schools 64 

9 


DIAGRAM  PAGE 

17.  Condition  of  certain  items  in  one-  and  two-teacher  buildings 66 

18.  Median  score  of  one-  and  two-teacher  buildings  on  each  of  the  items 

required  for  essential  standard  credit.  The  median  is  interpreted  in 
terms  of  the  percentage  of  a  perfect  essential  standard  score  that  is 
attained 69 

19.  Percentage  of  schools  with  three  or  more  teachers  having  adjusted  scores 

equal  to  or  greater  than  those  shown 76 

20.  Percentage  of  schools  with  three  or  more  teachers  having  a  ratio  of  glass 

area  to  floor  space  equal  to  or  above  the  standard  of  1:  5 81 

21.  Window  placement  in  schools  with  three  or  more  teachers 84 

22.  Fire  protection  in  buildings  with  three  or  more  teachers 87 

23.  Percentage  of  schools  with  three  or  more  teachers  having  playground 

area  per  pupil  equal  to  or  larger  than  the  amount  shown 90 

24.  Median  score  of  buildings  with  three  or  more  teachers  on  each  of  the 

main  groups  of  items  considered.     The  median  is  interpreted  in  terms 

of  the  percentage  of  a  perfect  score  that  is  attained 95 

25.  Relationship  between  median  total  scores  (essential  +  additional)  of 

one-teacher  buildings  and  the  average  real  valuations  of  the  districts 
maintaining  them.  The  dots  show  the  average  score  for  the  different 
valuations.     The  line  indicates  the  general  trend 100 

26.  Relationship  between  average  total  scores  (essential  +  additional)  of 

two-teacher  buildings  and  the  average  real  valuations  of  the  district 
maintaining  them.  The  dots  show  the  average  score  for  the  different 
valuations.     The  line  indicates  the  general  trend 102 

27.  Relationship  between  average  total  scores  (essential  +  additional)  of 

one-  and  two-teacher  buildings  and  the  dates  of  their  construction. 
These  curves  were  determined  by  plotting  the  average  for  the  various 
dates  of  construction,  and  then  the  line  drawn  by  inspection,  greater 
weight  being  given  to  those  points  which  represented  the  greater  num- 
ber of  schools 107 

28.  Relationship  between  scores  of  buildings  with  three  or  more  teachers 

and  the  dates  of  their  construction.  These  curves  were  determined 
by  plotting  the  averages  for  the  various  dates  of  construction,  and 
then  the  line  drawn  by  inspection,  greater  weight  being  given  to  those 
points  which  represented  the  greater  number  of  schools 110 


LIST  OF  TABLES 

TABLE  PAGE 

The  standards 28 

1.  Essential  standard  and  additional  credit  for  one-teacher  buildings.  ...  37 

2.  Essential  standard  and  additional  credit  for  two-teacher  buildings.  ...  39 

3.  Proportion  that  glass  area  is  of  floor  space 41 

4.  Color  and  type  of  shades 42 

5.  Window  placement 43 

6.  Type  of  heating  and  ventilating  apparatus  used 44 

7.  Number  of  thermometers  in  schools 45 

8.  Source  of  water  supply  for  schools 45 

9.  Certain  conditions  affecting  the  supply  of  pure  water 46 

10.  Means  for  preventing  contagion  through  drinking  or  washing 46 

11.  Is  floor  oiled? 48 

12.  Methods  of  sweeping  and  dusting 49 

13.  Number  of  schools  having  a  first  aid  outfit 50 

14.  Kinds  of  toilets 51 

14A.  Comparison  of  the  effectiveness  of  different  types  of  toilets  as  to  seclu- 
sion, lighting,  ventilation,  and  general  condition 52 

15.  Types  of  pupils'  desks 55 

16.  Adjustment  of  seats  and  desks 56 

17.  Kind  of  blackboard 57 

18.  Minimum  height  of  blackboard 58 

19.  Number  of  linear  feet  of  blackboard 60 

20.  Size  of  school  grounds 61 

21.  Playground  apparatus 62 

22.  Distribution  of  play  apparatus 63 

23.  Bulletin  board  facilities 63 

24.  Kind  of  artificial  lighting  provided 63 

25.  Schools  having  a  telephone 64 

26.  Schools  having  a  teacher's  room 64 

27.  Special  rooms 65 

28.  Condition  of  certain  items  in  the  building 66 

29.  Percentage  distribution  of  essential  standard  credit 68 

30.  Distribution  of  additional  credit  among  the  various  items 70 

31.  Amount  of  insurance  in  one- teacher  schools 72 

32.  Original  score  for  schools  of  three  or  more  teachers 73 

33.  Adjusted  score  for  buildings  of  three  and  more  teachers 74 

n 


TABLE  PAGE 

34.  Material  of  construction 78 

35.  Number  of  stories 78 

36.  Shape  of  buildings 78 

37.  Distribution  as  to  function  of  building 79 

38.  Distribution  of  schools,  showing  percentage  of  class,  recitation,  and 

study  rooms  in  which  the  standard  of  15  square  feet  of  floor  space  per 
pupil  is  met 80 

39.  Distribution  of  schools,  showing  percentage  of  class,  recitation,  and 

study  rooms  in  which  the  standard  of  200  cubic  feet  of  air  space  per 
pupil  is  met 80 

40.  Ratio  of  glass  area  to  floor  area  in  class,  recitation,  and  study  rooms ...     81 

41.  Distribution  of  schools,  showing  percentage  of  class,  recitation,  and 

study  rooms  in  which  the  ratio  of  glass  to  floor  area  is  below  1:5 82 

42.  Percentage  of  class,  recitation,  and  study  rooms  having  different  types 

of  shades 83 

43.  Percentage  of  class,  recitation,  and  study  rooms  having  translucent  and 

opaque  shades  (on  basis  of  color) 83 

44.  Percentage  of  class,  recitation,  and  study  rooms  having  light  from  dif- 

ferent directions 84 

45.  Heating  facilities 85 

46.  Thermostatic  control 85 

47.  Various  factors  in  fire  protection 86 

48.  Methods  of  cleaning 87 

49.  Artificial  lighting 88 

50.  Types  of  blackboard 88 

51.  Playground  area  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance 89 

52.  Number  of  pieces  of  playground  apparatus 90 

53.  Percentage  of  schools  having  certain  kinds  of  special  rooms 91 

54.  Distribution  of  the  schools  on  the  basis  of  the  percentage  of  the  total 

number  studied  receiving  different  percentages  of  a  perfect  score ....     94 

55.  Causes  of  present  condition  of  school  buildings  as  indicated  by  district 

superintendents 97 

56.  Distribution  of  one-teacher  schools  by  total  score  (essential  -f-  addi- 

tional) and  real  valuation  of  the  district 99 

57.  Distribution  of  two- teacher  schools  by  total  score  (essential  +  addi- 

tional) and  real  valuation  of  the  district 101 

58.  Distribution  of  schools,  with  three  to  four  teachers,  on  basis  of  score  of 

building  and  real  valuation 103 

59.  Distribution  of  schools  with  five  to  nine  teachers  on  basis  of  score  of 

building  and  real  valuation 104 

60.  Distribution  of  schools  with  ten  or  more  teachers  on  basis  of  score  of 

building  and  real  valuation 105 

61.  Distribution  of  one-teacher  schools  by  total  score  (essential  -f-  addi- 

tional) and  date  of  construction  of  the  building 106 

12 


TABLE  PAGE 

62.  Distribution  of  two-teacher  schools  by  total  score  (essential  +  addi- 

tional) and  date  of  construction  of  building 108 

63.  Distribution  of  three-  to  four-teacher  schools  by  score  and  date  of  con- 

struction of  building 109 

64.  Distribution  of  five-  to  nine-teacher  schools  by  score  and  date  of  con- 

struction of  building 112 

65.  Distribution  of  schools  with  ten  or  more  teachers  by  score  and  date  of 

construction  of  building 113 

66.  Orders  for  condemnation  and  alterations  issued,  1912-1921 124 

67.  Distribution  of  orders  for  condemnation  and  alterations  among  the 

supervisory  districts,  1912-1921 125 

68.  Estimated  cost  of  improving  a  typical  one-teacher  building 130 


13 


SCHOOL  BUILDINGS  AND  GROUNDS 
IN  RURAL  NEW  YORK 

IN  PLANNING  this  study  it  was  considered  practicable  to 
cover  approximately  one-fifth  of  the  supervisory  districts  of 
the  state.    Accordingly  41  districts  were  selected  from  the  7 
general  regions  into  which  the  state  had  been  divided  for  purposes 


Diagram  1. — Every  school  building  in  communities  under  4,500  has  been 
scored  in  the  shaded  areas.  The  seven  sections  into  which  the  state  was  divided 
are  indicated  by  the  heavy  lines 

of  the  survey  in  such  a  way  as  to  secure  supervisory  districts  that 
are  typical.  A  secondary  consideration  was  to  choose,  so  far  as 
possible,  districts  in  which  other  phases  of  the  survey  were  not 

is 


being  studied  intensively.  One  county,  Tompkins,  was  covered 
completely.  For  various  reasons — illness,  pressure  of  work,  etc. — 
data  from  only  37  of  the  41  districts  are  to  be  found  in  this  report. 
There  is  thus  included  17.8  percent  of  the  208  supervisory  districts, 
representing  34  of  the  57  counties  in  the  state  outside  of  New  York 
city.  The  map  on  p.  15  shows  the  location  of  these  supervisory 
districts. 

In  all,  1,661  occupied  school  buildings  have  been  studied.  This 
is  about  16  percent  of  all  schoolhouses  in  the  territory  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  district  superintendents.  These  are  divided  as 
follows : 

One  teacher 1,438 

Two  teachers 77 

Three  and  four  teachers 31 

Five  to  nine  teachers 70 

Ten  teachers  and  over 45 

All  occupied  school  buildings  in  these  37  supervisory  districts 
that  are  found  in  rural  communities  as  defined  in  New  York  state 
(under  4,500  population)  have  been  included. 


1 6 


I.  AN  ANALYSIS  OF  EXISTING  CONDITIONS 
A.    ONE-  AND  TWO-TEACHER  BUILDINGS 

1.  How  the  Facts  Were  Collected 
In  order  to  secure  data  that  would  be  as  comprehensive  and 
significant  as  possible  the  well-known  device  of  using  a  score  card 
was  employed.  This  procedure  has  certain  advantages  over  the 
method  that  has  frequently  been  used  in  state  surveys  of  collecting 
facts  regarding  a  few  phases  only  of  the  school  building,  such  as 
lighting,  heating,  cleaning  methods,  etc.  It  gives  a  more  compre- 
hensive view  of  such  buildings,  since  all  the  significant  phases,  in- 
stead of  a  few  only,  are  included.  Communities  may  thus  be 
stimulated  to  think  of  all  the  important  phases  of  their  school 
building.  In  addition,  the  details  of  any  phase  of  a  building  may  be 
studied  intensively  for  the  reason  that  the  facts  necessary  for  this 
purpose  have  already  been  collected  as  the  basis  for  scoring.  A 
third  advantage  is  found  in  the  opportunity,  through  having  com- 
prehensive facts,  of  stating  the  worth  of  a  building  in  terms  of,  say, 
1,000  points.  Thus  by  including  specified  factors  interpreted  in 
terms  of  specified  standards  one  is  able  to  say  that  a  building  is 
entitled  to  545  or  790  or  950  points.  In  this  way  we  avoid  the  use 
of  such  indefinite  terms  as  "poor,"  "good,"  and  "excellent." 

A  score  card  devised  particularly  to  meet  the  conditions  in  one- 
and  two-teacher  districts  was  used.  It  is  obvious  that,  because  of 
lack  of  sufficient  wealth,  modern  conveniences,  and  a  large  num- 
ber of  children  or  teachers,  the  standards  of  one-  and  two-teacher 
buildings  cannot  be  the  same  as  for  the  larger  ones.  Thus,  a  flush 
toilet  system,  electric  lights,  a  community  room,  running  water, 
and  similar  factors  may  be  possible  and  necessary  for  the  village 
schools  when  they  are  not  for  the  smaller  ones  in  the  open  country. 
In  making  this  score  card  the  services  of  some  80  persons — state 
2  17 


rural  school  supervisors,  state  school  building  specialists,  local 
rural  school  administrators,  and  professors  of  rural  education — 
were  utilized.  A  small  number  of  persons,  carefully  selected  be- 
cause of  ability,  experience,  and  interest,  was  considered  to  be  of 
greater  value  in  dealing  with  such  a  problem  than  a  large  number 
used  without  discrimination.  Since  the  methods  by  which  the 
score  card  was  constructed  have  been  described  elsewhere,1  they 
will  not  be  repeated  here. 

From  contact  with  farm  people  in  the  state  the  writer  came  to 
realize  that  the  question  of  defining  a  set  of  standards  that  would, 
on  the  one  hand,  represent  professional  opinion  and  recent  re- 
search, and,  on  the  other  hand,  seem  to  rural  folks  to  be  reasonable 
and  attainable,  was  a  difficult  problem,  and  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  practical  effect  of  the  study  one  of  very  great  importance. 
Standards  should  not  seem  to  the  rural  population  to  be  unattain- 
able since  a  group  in  that  state  of  mind  is  not  stimulated  to  make 
progress.  On  the  other  hand,  the  writer  is  confident  that  the 
typical  farmer  of  New  York  will  not  be  satisfied  to  have  his  school 
buildings  measured  by  standards  that  are  below  those  of  other 
states  or  that  fail  to  provide  conditions  and  facilities  essential  to 
the  physical,  moral  and  intellectual  development  of  his  children. 
He  will  ask  that  standards  be  reasonable,  but  not  that  they  be  such 
as  are  designed  to  satisfy  a  feeling  of  complacency. 

In  setting  standards  for  one-  and  two-teacher  buildings  that 
would  satisfy  these  requirements  the  following  procedure  was 
followed : 

1.  A  study  of  the  most  recent  literature  on  the  subject  and  of 
the  requirements  and  suggestions  of  various  states  was  made  and 
the  conclusions  put  into  definite  form. 

2.  The  material  so  collected  was  then  submitted  to  state  rural 
school  supervisors  and  to  a  group  of  New  York  district  superin- 
tendents with  the  request  that  they  grade  the  various  standards 
suggested  as  to  whether  they  were  "s"  (satisfactory),  "h"  (too 
high),  or  "1"  (too  low),  for  use  in  making  a  survey  of  buildings  in 
their  state.  They  were  also  asked  to  make  such  modifications, 
where  this  seemed  desirable,  as  would  express  their  own  conception 

1  Journal  of  Rural  Education,  September,  1922. 
18 


of  what  the  standard  should  be.  These  two  suggestions  were  given 
as  guides : 

"1.  The  school  building  and  its  grounds  should  be  evaluated 
from  the  point  of  view  of  contributing  to  the  effective  training  of 
children:  provision  for  intellectual  development;  facilities  for 
physical  development;   safeguarding  health  and  morals. 

"2.  Such  standards  as  are  required  should  be  as  much  of  a  step 
toward  the  ideal  as  possible,  but  they  should  not  be  such  as  to  seem 
to  the  typical  rural  school  patron  to  be  utterly  unattainable." 

Reports  were  had  from  25  state  rural  school  supervisors  and 
from  24  New  York  district  superintendents.  On  the  basis  of  these 
returns  certain  changes  were  made.  The  standards  finally  em- 
ployed are  therefore  submitted  as  representing  as  nearly  as  is 
possible  under  present  conditions  a  progressive,  yet  reasonable 
and  attainable,  basis  for  measuring  one-  and  two-teacher  buildings. 

One  of  the  important  problems  connected  with  the  construction 
of  the  score  card  was  what  to  do  with  those  factors  in  a  building — 
e.  g.,  teachers'  room,  work  room,  telephone,  etc. — that,  though 
desirable,  are  found  infrequently  and  may,  therefore,  be  con- 
sidered as  more  or  less  ideal  under  present  conditions.  To  require 
them  would  be  impracticable.  One  way  of  meeting  the  difficulty 
would  be  to  set  1,000  points  as  the  value  to  be  given  an  ideal  build- 
ing, the  score  for  a  reasonably  effective  one  being  set  at  some  point 
that  would  include  all  the  desired  factors  whether  that  score  is 
600  or  900.  Though  this  procedure  was  more  simple  it  was  dis- 
carded in  favor  of  another  device. 

This  device  divides  possible  building  standards  into  two  groups: 
those  that  should  be  required  of  all;  and  those  that  are  in  ad- 
vance of  what  may  be  expected  of  most  schools.  The  former 
set  of  standard  are  called  "essential";  the  latter,  "additional." 
Under  this  plan  a  building  that  may  be  accepted  as  satisfactory 
will  receive  the  full  1,000  points  of  essential  credit,  while  a  really 
modern  building  will  have  from  275  to  300  points  of  additional 
credit.  The  score  of  the  sample  building  given  is  606  +  32.  This 
indicates  that  while  it  has  a  few  factors  that  justify  additional 
credit  it  falls  far  short  of  meeting  the  essential  requirements. 

This  plan  has  several  advantages  over  the  plan  first  considered. 

19 


(1)  It  meets  better  the  farmer's  state  of  mind  in  that  he  is  less 
likely  to  think  of  it  as  involving  impracticable  standards.  He  is 
more  likely  to  be  stimulated  both  to  meet  the  essential  standards 
and  to  secure  additional  credit  by  providing  better  facilities.  (2) 
Additional  credit  should  not  only  be  given  for  other  factors  than 
those  required  in  the  essential  standards,  such  as  a  work  room, 
but  better  facilities  than  those  included  in  the  essential  standards 
may  be  desired  in  practically  any  factor.  Thus  it  should  be  pos- 
sible to  give  additional  credit  for  a  flush  toilet  or  for  movable 
chair-desks  or  for  a  furnace.  It  is  possible  to  do  so  under  this 
plan  but  not  under  the  first  plan.  (3)  A  satisfactory  score  implies 
that  those  factors  essential  to  accomplishing  the  purposes  of  a 
rural  building  are  all  included  and  that  no  other  factors  may  be 
substituted  for  them.  A  play  room  cannot  be  a  substitute  for  a  pure 
water  supply  nor  a  telephone  for  a  sufficiently  large  playground, 
yet  this  would  be  possible  where  a  specified  number  out  of  1,000 
points  is  set  as  the  minimum.  The  plan  accepted  meets  this  diffi- 
culty. (4)  To  the  extent  that  the  division  between  "essential" 
and  "additional"  is  acceptable,  this  device  performs  the  service  of 
suggesting  to  communities  that  the  defects  in  the  essential  stan- 
dards should  be  corrected  before  much  energy  is  expended  on  the 
additional  items.  A  lack  of  balance  on  this  point  in  school  building 
construction  is  no  unusual  matter. 

At  the  outset  the  director  of  the  section  on  School  Buildings  had 
to  decide,  in  view  of  the  amount  of  funds  that  could  properly  be 
given  to  the  study  of  this  problem,  between  the  employment  of  a 
small  number  of  experienced  scorers  reaching  a  limited  number  of 
schools x  and  the  use  of  a  larger  number  of  scorers  with  less  experi- 
ence reaching  a  greater  number  of  schools.  The  objections  to  each 
method  are  clear.  After  considerable  thought  the  second  procedure 
was  adopted  for  the  reason  that  it  was  important  that  a  fair  pro- 
portion of  all  school  buildings  in  the  state  should  be  reached  in 
order  that  the  farmer  have  confidence  in  the  conclusions.  Further- 
more, it  was  believed  that  a  group  of  district  superintendents  could 
be  trained  to  collect  and  interpret,  on  such  an  objective  problem, 

1  By  this  procedure  about  one-third  of  the  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 
actually  studied  could  have  been  scored. 


data  that  would  have  scientific  value.  The  following  procedure 
was  followed:  (1)  The  co-operating  superintendents  were  met  in 
groups  of  from  two  to  eight  for  purpose  of  training.  Two  schools 
were  visited  and  the  buildings  scored,  discussion  helping  to  reduce 
differences  in  methods  of  recording  data  and  in  interpreting  them 
in  terms  of  the  standards.  (2)  The  superintendents  were  invited  to 
send  in  their  first  score  cards  for  criticism  and  most  of  them  did  so. 
(3)  When  the  results  were  turned  in  the  work  of  each  superintendent 
was  checked1  and  necessary  corrections  were  made.  The  writer, 
therefore,  submits  these  data  in  the  confident  belief  that  they 
represent  an  unusually  complete,  accurate,  and  uniform  interpre- 
tation of  the  situation.  Too  much  credit  cannot  be  given  those 
superintendents  whose  results  are  included  in  this  study.2    They 

1  The  checking  method  tested  two  factors  in  the  accuracy  of  the  work:  (1) 
Care  in  recording  data  in  a  complete  and  uniform  fashion;  (2)  care  in  inter- 
preting these  data  in  terms  of  the  "credits"  or  "points"  to  be  given.  The  first 
factor  considered:  Whether  either  "S"  (satisfactory)  or  "U"  (unsatisfactory) 
were  used  in  describing  the  condition  of  the  various  items;  whether  a  "U" 
condition  was  properly  described  so  that  the  deficiencies  were  clear  to  the  reader; 
whether  deficiencies  were  filled  in  (e.  g.,  item  16  of  score  card)  where  deduction 
was  made  from  full  credit;  whether  the  "essential"  and  the  "additional" 
credits  were  summarized  separately;  the  frequency  with  which  desks  were  re- 
ported as  "S"  (an  index  of  a  reasonably  critical  attitude  toward  what  is  found); 
the  frequency  with  which  the  adjustment  of  desks  was  reported  as  "S";  and 
the  frequency  with  which  credit  was  given  for  an  item  where  the  facts  were  not 
recorded. 

The  second  factor  tested  the  accuracy  of  the  scorer  in  interpreting  the  facts 
in  terms  of  the  standards.  For  this  purpose  items  1,  3,  4,  6,  10,  15,  24a,  24b, 
26,  29a,  41,  and  43  were  selected  as  good  test  situations. 

In  about  a  dozen  cases  it  was  found  that  the  scorer  had  made  errors  in  one 
or  two  particulars  to  a  sufficient  extent  to  require  correction.  In  one  case  the 
scorer  completely  revised  his  work;  in  a  second  case  partial  revision  was  neces- 
sary; in  a  third  case  the  entire  material  was  thrown  out. 

1  am  indebted  to  Mr.  W.  W.  Reitz,  graduate  student  in  Rural  Education,  for 
the  careful  manner  in  which  this  checking  was  done. 

2  The  following  participated  in  collecting  the  data  for  one-  and  two-teacher 
schools  herein  presented: 

County  Superintendent  Supervisory  District 

Allegany John  D.  Jones  Second 

Cattaraugus Edw.  A.  Stratton  Fifth 

Cayuga Mabelle  L.  Rodger  Fifth 

Chautauqua James  G.  Pratt  Fourth 

Chemung Walter  C.  King  First 

Chenango Mary  L.  Isbell  Fifth 

Clinton Clara  E.  Soden  Third 

Columbia Mathew  G.  Rickey  Third 

(Table  continued  at  foot  of  page  22.) 

21 


have  done  a  piece  of  work  that  called  for  a  tremendous  expenditure 
of  energy  and  have  done  it  in  a  manner  to  command  respect.  The 
writer  is  also  greatly  indebted  to  Mr.  F.  H.  Wood,  chief  of  the 
Division  of  Buildings  and  Grounds  of  the  State  Department  of 
Education.  He  has  not  only  made  available  the  resources  of  his 
Division  but  has  given  unstintedly  of  his  own  time  and  energy 
whenever  demands  were  made  upon  them. 

On  the  following  pages  is  presented  a  copy  of  the  score  card  filled 
out  for  a  fairly  typical  one-teacher  school. 

Suggestions  for  the  Use  of  this  Score  Card 

1.  Fill  in  the  general  information  called  for  near  the  top  of  the 
first  page — "year  schoolhouse  was  built,"  etc. 

2.  Make  the  measurements  called  for  regarding  the  building — 
width,  length,  height,  etc. — and  record  the  figures.  While  it  may 
seem  that  there  are  many  such  facts,  remember  that  every  one  is 


County  Superintendent  Supervisory  District 

Delaware Milton  G.  Nelson  Fifth 

Dutchess Frank  O.  Green  Fourth 

Erie William  E.  Pierce  Third 

Franklin Myrtle  E.  MacDonald  First 

Genesee H.  William  Dyer  First 

Greene Thomas  C.  Perry  First 

Herkimer Silas  C.  Kimm  Second 

Jefferson Mrs.  G.  L.  DeOloqui  Sixth 

Lewis A.  Winfield  Trainor  Fourth 

Madison Irving  S.  Sears  First 

Monroe Mark  B.  Furman  Second 

Oneida Glenn  G.  Steele  First 

Ontario Leon  J.  Cook  First 

Orleans Chas.  W.  Smith  Third 

Otsego Harrison  Cossaart  Fifth 

Rensselaer Mrs.  Adelaide  W.  Gardner  Second 

St.  Lawrence William  T.  Clark  First 

Virgil  C.  Warriner  Fourth 

Saratoga Lou  Messenger  Second 

Schoharie Ralph  W.  Eldridge  Third 

Seneca Chas.  B.  Earl  Second 

Steuben Winfred  Morrow  Second 

Sullivan Chas.  S.  Hick  Second 

Tompkins Fred  A.  Beardsley  First 

Hattie  K.  Buck  Second 

John  D.  Biglow  Third 

Warren Mrs.  Rose  Minnick  Third 

Westchester Robert  D.  Knapp  Fourth 

Wyoming George  H.  Stratton  Third 

22 


significant  in  some  way  to  the  proper  housing  of  school  children. 
Remember,  too,  that  accurate  facts  are  the  raw  material  for  making 
accurate  conclusions. 


BUTTERWORTH   SCHOOL-BUILDING  SCORE  CARD 


Devised  by  JULIAN  E.  BUTTERWORTH 
Prul.,tor  „/  Rural  £aV«rio«.  Ceniill  Umnmkj 

FOR  ONE-TEACHER  SCHOOL  BUILDINGS 


^...iMV-fd"** '  .! County.*', 


* 


IVtM/    .D«t< 


77JT. 


%.UM. 


li:.y> 


.Assessed  valuation  of  district.    .  7..  /.?.  t   &.  .0 .  V  . 
Is  tit  L  co  school  property 

properly   recorded?   * 

Amount  for  which  bunding  is  n 


Year  school  house 
Year  of  addi 

costing  $500  or  over. 
Estimated  present  value  of 

buildings   and   grounds 


and 


.i*1.. 


1.  Sue  of  classroom  ;       n 

1.  Width    ..X.t...f-.w 

2.  Length  ..XI'. .4* 

3.  Heigh.   ...Kr...f    

4.  Pupil  capacity . . .  r* £. 

5.  Enrollment  .....  -y-  n j /  •  ■  ■ 

6.  Floor  area  ...k&.9JH*fk  .. 

7.  Area  per  pupil  of  room    ™        jl 
capacity... JkMftffr. 

a  Area  per  pupil  of      .  •  ' 

enrollment    .."....  '.¥-  .  . . j 

9.  Cubical  contents...  7  Jr/.frW 

10.  Cu.  ft.  per  pupil  of  room  ,  / ' 

capacity    .2%£'FCW:.ft.. 

II;  Cu.  h.  prr  puntlof  #    // 

enrollment    .  J  2  f,  Jf.  OKj-fT: 

2.  Shape  of  classroom 

IZ  Ratio  width  to  length/ : .  <:.T. . . 

3.  Window  placement 

13.  Number  of   windows  for  lighting 
on:    l,onl...0..;    rear. . .  X. . : 
right...*,..;    left...**... 
J4.  Distance  between  window  and 


/.!./* 

IS.  Height  of  window  till. ...... 


tiling  . 


18.  Ratio  height  of  windows 

of  iw...y.;.ju2r!. 

19.  If  ventilation  windows,  n. 
requirements  n. 


T 


4.  Glass  area 

20.  Front...?..;  rear..; 
right..  *?. V;  left..  V 

21.  Total  area...  3  *>.... 
Z2.  Ratio  glass  area  to  floor 

ar«../.;>_J...    . 


nt 


Material  ykAL^-.tU^t 

Condition   ILTTM^tS. 

(^HW.rVtW. 

m^d  ..fj+ffas. 

29.  Finish...  rf^S^  A. ...A 

30.  Conditioo  .  TO^;  .  <>Vr.  CrY*. 

.1Rav 

.  Color  scheme  / 

31.  Ceiling..***.;   walls.<rV*l*H<: 

dado  . . .vtTvrwyu 


.  Inside  finish 

32.  Material 

33.  Color*.. . 

34.  Worknui..u|. 

35.  Simplicity V. 


Iron  floor. 

40!  '&ri*^w..r,.f&M*f&L> 
<Vvtv<*tv«<.. '...'..  ,. 


.  Blackboard 

37.  Location  .  f/^Jf.. .  .„ 

38.  Height  from  floor...  2t4     . 

39.  Number  linear  .feet. ./.?..  *> 


.  Bulletin  board 
41.  Kind 


44.  Kind;  of/pupils'  desks 


*.-.«&<■##(! ' 


.jfMi. 


45.  Is  number  sufficient  ? ._ 

46.  Number  of  sizes....  V. 

47.  Is  this  number  sufficient 

48.  %  cases  where  seat,  is  not  properly 
•  adjusted    ..i£.7H 

49.  %  cases  where  desk  is  nor  properly 

50.  CbndfcSu'  7&)L*«ol '.  //W&'M 

51.  Type  of  teacher's  desk.  .VfltQs 

52.  Type  of  teacher's  j^.tiAltUs 

53.  Conditioo  tf£*fy§f 

I/Seating  arrangements 

54.  Are  seats  arranged  on  long  axis  of 


55.  Width  of  aisKs tf. 

56.  Minimum  distance  between  desks 
and  inside  walls. .  .T.*.  .ft.;  desks 
and  window  walls . .  «v  «* 

57.  Are  rows  of  seats  arranged  so,far 
is  possible  according  to  size?.  />fl 

58.  %  cases  where  distance  between 
desk   and   scat  js   not   satisfactory 


Closet  .  / 


60.   Are  they  ampl 


Y'f 


Vu. 


16.  Fuel  room 
62.  ft 


.Mf^irrr. 


3.  In  recording  the  condition  of  an  item,  e.  g.,  shades,  do  not  say 
"good,"  "fair,"  "bad,"  etc.  These  words  mean  different  things 
to  different  persons.     Use,  instead,  "S"  (satisfactory)  or  "U" 

23 


(unsatisfactory).  These  words  may  convey  more  nearly  the  same 
idea  to  different  persons  if  one  understands  that  "S"  means  that 
the  condition  of  the  item  is  such  as  not  to  interfere  with  the  purpose  of 


.  Cloakroom  .  | 

IHA&^'to4>tU*+  WHO 


18   Workroom  • 

66.  Facilities  provided    .  M  . 


1°.  Storeroom 

68.  Facilities  provided. . .  (). . 


"acilitii!  .provided  Q . . 


71.  Teacher's  roo 

72.  Sue 

73.  Equipment 


22.  Playroom  a 

75.  Facilities  provided.... P. 


23.  Neighborhood  room 
77.  Facilities  provided. 


tilation     (I   LrJI 

/tCvCfl 


BO.  Grate  area  .£.*). ... 

81.  Area  air  intake..... .  0.  ..U. 


Fire  extinguisher         /\ 
85.  JCipd V.. 


87.  Method  of  d 


J  A     —  f  i 


dusting. Vie 

.  Water  supply  j_      fi      /      • 

89.  Source  TWlTUf  "f*^     y 

90.  How  far  is  water  carried  ?.»  Mi 

91.  Distance  of  well  from  Tcares 
stable,  outhouse,  or  other  po^iblt 
source  of  contamination.  +(ft'. 

92.  Is  well  protected  from  surfao 
drainage?  . .  .  .¥*V 

93.  How  ofren  is  water 

analyzed  ?..'ktVl>*4e< 

94.  Other   facts 


v5  *y$£par'**' 

96.  If  not  fountain,  are  paper  cops  t 
individual  prinking     cups     used? 


97.  Are  individual  drinking  cups  ade 
quatcly  protected  when  not  in  use 


Washing  facilities  provided. 


.  Artificial  lighting        _ 

102.  Kind 9. 

103.  Is  it  sufficient?.... 

104.  Rooms  not  lighted. 


.  Toilets 
105    Kind 

106.  Locat 

107.  Is  there  suffici. 
M. 


well  lighted?..  .^V 
well  ventilated/  W. 
adrouatc*    .  #d. 


Telephone  /] 

112.  Is  there  one?.  .  .  ST. .  . 

113.  Kind  .    /HVMj(.  . 

First  aid  outfit  s\ 

114.  Is  there  one?. ...  U. . 


.  Flag  and  pole 

116.  Size  of  flag.... 

117.  Location  of  pole 

118.  Condition  of  flag 

119.  Deficiencies    ... 


factory?. .  .1/ 


122.  For  Mjhat. pufxBes  usW?y     . 


Material  of  I 
1J4.  Material 

125.  Color  of 

.  Foundation 

126.  Material 

127.  Height 

128.  Conditioi 


liliqp,  3  UttW-r^.  ■¥/  . 


Position  on  grounds 

132    I '.I-    I  u.ldirii.  interfere  with  play- 

ground!  .    .TU)    . 
133.  Is 


tff 


Orientation 
I '4    Direetitrtl 
135.  Is  this  the 


it    veil    plated    for    aesthetic 
ct?....    VtViV 

"fad  £w  -*iT>^[ 
most  satisfactory  cricn 

ndei  the  conditions? 


that  item  in  the  school.    Thus,  if  any  of  the  shades  are  badly  worn 
or  if  any  of  their  rollers  are  broken,  the  condition  is  clearly  "U." 
4.  When  a  "U"  condition  is  found,  describe  briefly  why  it  is 

24 


unsatisfactory,  as,  "3  badly  worn;  2  rollers  broken."  You  then 
have  detailed  information  that  will  tell  you  how  unsatisfactory  the 
condition  is  and  will  make  it  unnecessary  for  you  to  go  back  to  the 
building  if  you  wish  to  tell  another  person  exactly  what  is  wrong. 


THE  SCORE 

.Vole      In  column  2  below  place  the  credit  allowed  each  item  aj  "essential  itandard  credit";  in  column  4  place  the  "additional 
credit"  allowed  in  term*  of  the  standards  and  values  piesented  in  the  bulletin  that  is  designed  to  accompany  this  scale.    The  various 
credits  may  be  summarized  in  columns  3  and  5  under  the  different  group  headings.-   If  additional  credit  SI  granted  for  items  not 
given  in  the  bulletin,  these  should  be  included  at  the  bottom  of  this  page  under  "Other  Items." 

EaastUI  EuixUitl  Credit 

"SSr1 

EomousI  Btaodard  Crvdlt           Cf«4ii 

1      1     3           3 

4 

\ 

I 

2 

i 

t 

s 

I   Th.  CI..U00.0 

1    340 

m 

lh 

2h\  Artificial  lighting      '. 

10 

0 

I. Sire 

-      & 

/d 

20.  Toilets 

2. Shape 

20 

hO 

Jk 

a.  Kind   

20 

/0 

1.  Window  placement 

15 

It 

b    Placement 

10 

y 

4.01m  am 

10 

Art 

20 

itr 

IS 

.V 

IS 

tf 

6.  Floor       

IS 

rf 

30.  Telephone 

0 

7.  Walla 

IS 

i* 

5 

y 

1   Color  scheme             

20 

/d 

32.  First  aid  oo.be 

10 

t 

9   In.ide  hnish 

IS 

r 

33.  Mail  boa 

5 

I 

io  Di.atio.td 

30 

/o 

34,  Rag  and  pole    ... 

10 

IQ 

-1 

3l 

II    Bulletin  board 

10 

d 

IV.    In.  budding  m  general     ... 

155 

Hi 

13  li. a. 

35.  Vestibule 

20 

/F 

a.  Pupils   

40 

to 

36.  Material  of  construction 

25 

tf 

b    Teacher. 

10 

f 

15 

10 

13.  S.atina  .....i«« 

25 

a' 

38.  Roof 

20 

If 

/o 

14  Closet  ., 

15 

/y 

39.  Condition  of  repair 

30 

3.0 

IS   Clock 

S 

o 

40  Location  on  grounds. ....... 

20 

yo 

II.  Othei  rooms  or  room  facditic. . . 

80 

a- 

d 

41.  Orientation 

25 

z* 

i 

— 

16  Fuel  room 

20 

ty 

42.  Architectutal  appearance 

0 

— 

1?.  Cloakroom. 

25 

,f 

V.  The  grounds 

170 

IT-i) 

_i2 

IS.  Workioomt 

0 

25 

iy 

19.  Storeroom  

IS 

0 

44. Shape 

10 

10 

10  l, bury 

20 

lb' 

45.  Slope  and  dt.inage 

25 

;. 

21.  Teacher's  room 

0 

— 

20 

« 

22    Playroom 

0 

- 

5 

v 

21    Neighborhood  room 

0 

— 

4S   Walks 

10 

0 

111    Cenei.l  SWvia.  Equipment 

255 

\U 

y 

49  Playground  apparatus 

25 

0 

24   Heat  and  eentilai.on 

SO.  Environment 

25 

H 

a    Kind 

JO 

li' 

51.  Accessibility . 

25 

f-i 

1 

b    Adequacy 

30 

IP 

Othei  Items: 

e    Theimometer 

10 

0 

i.                                   i 

25   Fire.atinguisher 

0 

»■ 

26.  Clcanini  system 

20 

tr 

3 

27.  Water  supply| 

4 

a    Source 

25 

it 

5                                            1 

b.  Facilities  for  drinking 

20 

\ 

6 

c.  Facilities  for  ..thing 

IS 

y 

Total  Scot,                                                 ~4\  0 1>  1 

IF 

i 

5.  Where  the  term  "deficiencies"  is  found,  describe  briefly  what 
is  lacking.    See  the  sample  score  card  for  illustration. 

25 


6.  After  recording  all  the  facts  begin  the  work  of  assigning  value  to 
each  of  the  items  given  on  page  3  of  the  score  card  (see  p.  25) .  Com- 
pare, for  example,  the  size  of  the  class  room  you  are  studying  with  the 


42.  Architectural  appearance 

136.  Desirable  features 

137.  Undesirable  features 

...J*t-ff.tAtr< 

43.  Size  of  grounds  ,  a/ 

138.  Number  sq.  rds..  (t  I 

139.  For  what  purpose  is  more  land 
than  160  sq.  rd>.  needed  under 
these  conditions.'.  7t»0VV*— 

44    Shape  of  grounds 

i4o.  *%&$&A$x?;;; 

4  5.  Slope  and  drainage  lLL* 

141  Are  grounds  fairly  level  >jjj 

142  Are  they  well  drained'     TT^-' 


46.  Condition 

143.  Unsighi^obj 

144.  Attractive  features 

146.  Height    _. 

147.  Condition  . . .  *W». 

48.  Walks  ,s 

148.  Kind  .....r? 

149.  Condition 

49.  Playground  apparatus    >» 

150.  Appararu.    U. . 


153.  Undesirable  featu 


irable  learures.  .  .  . 


51.  Accessibility 

154.  How  far  is  school  from  one  of  the 
highways  of    the    district? 


highways 


155  Percentage  of  homes  in  district 
within  1  mile.  O~0  .  1-1/.  oiilei 
..tflr.iove,  |J*i»i.« 


156.  Is  transportation  at  public  ex- 
pense provided  for  pupils  over 
lyi  milea  away?.  ?H)VV<w< 


standards  given  as  to  "number  of  square  feet  of  floor  space,"  and 
"number  of  cubic  feet  of  air  space  per  pupil."  If  it  fully  meets 
the  standards,  record  in  column  2  of  the  score  card  the  full  value 

26 


"40."  If  it  does  not  fully  meet  the  standards,  column  2  of  the 
Standards  which  describes  situations  not  up  to  the  essential,  yet 
those  that  are  frequently  found,  will  give  you  some  aid  in  deter- 
mining how  much  credit  you  should  allow.  If  you  find  more  space 
than  the  essential  standard  requires,  then  the  school  is  entitled  to 
additional  credit  on  this  item.  Column  3  of  the  Standards  will  aid 
you  in  giving  a  value.  Record  this  in  column  4  of  the  score  card. 
You  will  note  that  the  data  are  arranged  in  the  same  order  as  the 
items  on  the  score  card  and  in  the  Standards  so  as  to  make  the 
comparison  easier. 

7.  You  will,  of  course,  find  situations  frequently  that  are  different 
from  any  descriptions  given  in  the  Standards.  Use  your  best 
judgment  as  to  what  credit  should  be  allowed.  If  you  do  much 
scoring  of  buildings,  it  will  contribute  to  the  uniformity  of  your 
grading  if  you  will  write  down  in  the  Standards  a  brief  description 
of  the  situation,  together  with  the  credit  you  have  allowed.  Note 
that,  in  all  values  given,  an  "S"  condition  is  assumed.  Thus,  if  the 
shades  are  such  as  to  color  and  type  to  justify  only  the  5  points  sug- 
gested in  column  2  of  the  Standards,  a  reduction  from  that  credit 
must  still  be  made  if  the  condition  is  unsatisfactory. 

8.  After  filling  in  the  credit  for  all  the  items  add  up  the  figures 
and  record  the  totals  at  the  bottom  of  the  page.  Keep  the  "essen- 
tial "  credit  and  the  "additional"  credit  separate.  The  score  in  the 
building  analyzed  on  the  sample  score  card  shows  that  it  lacks  394 
points  (1,000  —  606)  of  meeting  desirable  standards  but  that  in  cer- 
tain respects  it  more  than  meets  such  standards.  You  now  have 
the  information  that  not  only  tells  you  exactly  where  your  building 
stands  on  the  scale,  but  also  what  improvements  need  to  be  made  in 
order  to  provide  better  conditions  for  the  children. 

9.  Where  columns  2  or  3  of  the  Standards  are  blank,  it  does  not 
mean  that  no  such  situations  exist;  rather  that  it  has  been  difficult 
to  state  the  standards  so  as  to  convey  a  uniform  meaning.  In  such 
cases  use  your  best  judgment  in  assigning  values. 

10.  Note  that  for  two-teacher  buildings  a  few  changes  have  been 
stated  on  the  last  page  of  the  Standards.  Data  for  the  second  class- 
room of  such  a  building  may  be  recorded  with  that  of  the  first 


27 


class  room  thus:   width  20-22'.    In  assigning  values  for  these  two 
class  rooms  the  facts  regarding  both  must,  of  course,  be  considered. 
The  standards  used  in  interpreting  the  facts  and  in  assigning 
values  to  situations  are  presented  herewith : 
The  Standards1 


1.  Essential  Standards: 

These  standards  represent  the  least 
that  may  be  expected  of  an  effective 
one-teacher  school  building  and  its 
grounds. 


Size  Score:  40 

(a)  IS  square  feet  of  floor  space  per 

pupil  of  room  capacity  (number 

of  sittings). 

(fc)  200  cubic  feet  of  air  space  per 
pupil  of  room  capacity  (number 
of  sittings). 


2.  Less  Than  Essen- 
tial: 
This  column  describes 
typical  conditions  that 
are  below  those  that 
should  be  accepted  as 
essential  and  gives  the 
values  that  should  be 
assigned. 


Score:  20 

(a)  12  square  feet  of 
floor  space  per  pupil 
of  room  capacity. 

(b)  120  cubic  feet  of  air 
space  per  pupil  of 
room  capacity. 


3.  More  than  Es- 
sential: 
This  column  describes 
typical  conditions  that 
are  above  those  that 
may  be  accepted  as 
essential  and  gives 
values  that  should  be 
assigned  as  additional 
credit. 


Score:   10 

(a)  20  square  feet  of 
floor  space  per  pu- 
pil of  room  ca- 
pacity. 

(b)  240  cubic  feet  of 
air  space  per  pupil 
of  room  capacity. 


2.  Shape  of  room  Score:  20 

(a)  Rectangular:  width  4  to  length 
5;  or  width  2  to  length  3  (ap- 
proximately). 


Score:   10 
(a)  Square  or  nearly  so. 


Score:  5 
(a)  Rectangular:  width 
3  to  length  4. 


3.  Window  placement  Score:  35 
(j)  Windows  grouped  on  .-left  of 
pupils.  Ventilation  windows 
may  be  permitted  if  they  are 
placed  well  toward  the  top  of 
the  rear  or  right  walls,  are  small, 
and  are  covered  with  opaque 
curtains. 
(6)  Any  large  area  without  windows 
to  be  at  front  end  of  side  wall. 
Windows  should  not  extend  be- 
yond front  row  of  seats. 

(c)  Not  over  ten  inches  between 
windows. 

(d)  Windows  between  3  and  4  feet 
from  floor  with  distance  from 
floor  to  top  of  window  equal  to 
one-half  width  of  room. 


Score:   10 

(a)  Windows     on     t 
sides  and  rear. 


(6)  Distance  between 
windows  at  front 
and  at  rear  end  of 
side  wall  about 
equal. 

(c)  6  feet  (approxi- 
mately) between 
windows. 

(d)  Windows  between  3 
and  4  feet  from  floor 
with  about  2l/2  feet 
from  top  of  window 
to  ceiling. 


4.  Class  area  Score:  30 

(a)  Ratio  to  floor  space  1:5  (1:4  if 
light  comes  from  north  or  side 
that  is  considerably  shaded). 


Score:  10 
(a)  Ratio  of  floor  space 
1:9  (1:7  if  light 
comes  from  north 
or  from  side  that  is 
considerably  shaded. 


1  The  score  card  is  published  by  the  World  Book  Co.,  Yonkers,  N.  Y.  Copies 
of  these  standards  may  be  secured  without  cost  by  asking  the  New  York  State 
College  of  Agriculture,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  for  the  bulletin  entitled:  "  Improving  the 
School  Building  Facilities  in  One-  and  Two-teacher  Districts  Through  Measure- 
ment." 

28 


The  Standards — Continued 


5 

Shades                            Score:  15 

Score:  5 

(a)  Translucent. 

(a)  Dark  green  color. 

(b)  Fastened  so  as  to  protect  from 

(b)  Single  shade  fastened 

sun   without   shutting   off   light 

at  top. 

unnecessarily;  movable  or  double 

mounted  with  one  curtain  at  top 

of  window  and  one  at  bottom. 

6. 

Floor                                Score:   IS 

Score:  5 

Score:  5 

(a)  Rift-sawed,  hard  pine  relatively 

(a)  Soft,  native  timber. 

(a)  Maple,  beech,  oak 

free  from  knots,  closely  laid  (or 

(or  equivalent  ma- 

equivalent material). 

terial);  or  cement 
covered  with  bat- 
tleship linoleum. 

(b)  Double  floor. 

(b)  Same.1 

(6)  Same. 

7. 

Walls                               Score:   15 

Score:  5 

Score:  5 

(a)  Ordinary   plaster  or   commonly 

(a)  Matched  lumber. 

(a)  Smooth-finish, hard 

accepted     substitutes,    such     as 

plaster         without 

beaver  board  or  plaster  board. 

high  gloss;  no 
wainscoating  ex- 
cept glazed  brick 
or  tile. 

8. 

Color  scheme                   Score:  20 

Score:  5 

Score:  10 

(a)  Walls  and  ceiling  in  some  light 

(a)  Prevailing  color  dark 

(a)  Walls:  southern  ex- 

reflecting color   pleasing  in   its 

blue,  dark  green  or 

posure — light   gray 

general  effect. 

other     light-absorb- 

or   light    green    or 

ing  color. 

light  drab;  north- 
ern exposure — light 
cream  or  buff. 

(b)  Ceiling:  white, 
slightly  modified 
by  wall  color. 

(c)  Dado:  darker,  har- 
monious color. 

9. 

Inside  finish                    Score:  15 

Score:  5 

(a)  Good  quality  material,  local  or 

(a)  Hard  wood. 

otherwise. 

(6)  Tastefully  painted  or  varnished. 

(b)  Same. 

(c)  Good  workmanship. 

(c)  Same. 

(d)  Without  unnecessary  carving  or 

(d)  Same. 

fluting. 

10.  Blackboard                    Score:  30 

Score:  10 

(a)  Slate. 

(a)  Painted    boards    or 
plaster. 

(6)  Minimum   of   about   20   linear 

(6)  Minimum  space  the 

feet  for  school  with  15  or  more 

same;    some   black- 

pupils, or  about  10  linear  feet 

board  between  win- 

for school  with  fewer  than   15 

dows. 

pupils;    none  on  window  wall. 

(c)  Chalk  and  eraser  tray. 

(d)  Two    heights   from    floor;     26 

(c)  Same. 

inches    and    32    inches.      One 

(d)  Same. 

height  will  be  acceptable  if  not 

over  28  inches  from  floor  and  if 

board  is  at  least  3K  feet  wide. 

1 

.  Bulletin  board               Score:   10 

Score:  0 

Score:  5 

(a)  Soft  wood  covered  with  burlap 

(a)  Use   of   walls,    win- 

(a) Cork  carpet  set  in 

or  beaver  board. 

dow  frames,  etc. 

neat  frame. 

(6)  Minimum     size     500     square 

(b)  Minimum  size,  900 

inches. 

square  inches. 

(c)  Within  reach  of  children  so  they 

(c)  Within     reach     of 

may  read  material  on  it  readily. 

children. 

1  The  word  "same"  means  that  the  same  standards  apply  as  are  outlined  in 
column  1  under  the  same  letter  or  figure. 

29 


The  Standards — Continued 


12.  (a)  Desks  Score:  40 

(1)  Single  desks. 

(2)  5  sizes  except  in  small 
schools.  Judge  this  factor 
by  whether  there  are  enough 
sizes  to  provide  adequately 
for  proper  seating  of  all 
children.1 

(b)  Teacher's  desk        Score:   10 

(1)  Well  constructed,  attrac- 
tive, with  2  or  more  drawers 
fitted  with  locks. 

(2)  Substantial  office  chair. 


13.  Seating  arrangements   Score:  25 
(a)  On  long  axis  of  room;   so  faced 
that  light  comes  from  left  if 
the  windows  are  on  one  side 
only. 


(6)  At  least  18  inches  between 
rows  with  at  least  30  inches  be- 
tween seats  and  walls. 


(c)  So  far  as  possible  rows  should 
be  made  up  of  seats  of  same 
size. 

(d)  Desk  set  at  such  distance  from 
seat  that  pupil  may  work  while 
sitting  in  an  upright  position. 
In  general,  desk  should  over- 
lap seat  by  about  two  inches. 


14.  Closet  Score:  IS 

(a)  Cabinet  with  door  for  various 
kinds  of  teaching  supplies. 


IS.  Clock  Score:  5 

(a)  Small  clock  on  teacher's  desk. 


16.  Fuel  room  Score:  20 

(a)  Outside  fuel  shed;  well  lighted; 
substantial  structure;  painted 
to  match  school  building,  or 


(6)  Cellar    under    building; 
lighted;   thoroughly  dry. 


well 


Score:  15 

(1)  Double,  non-adjust- 
able desks. 

(2)  Same. 


Score:  5 

(1)  Table     with     single 
drawer. 

(2)  Straight-backed 
chair  of  kitchen  type. 


Score:   10 
(a)  On    short    axis    of 
room. 


(b)  Same. 


(c)  Rows  made  up  of 
seats  of  different 
size. 

(<f)  Same. 


Score: 
(a)  Open  shelves. 


Score:  0 
(a)  Teacher's  watch. 


Score:  10 
(a)  Use  of  shed  con- 
nected with  school 
building  for  fuel, 
store  and  wash  room 
combined,  the  fuel 
being  piled  in  open 
bins. 


Score:   10 

(1)  Movable    chair- 
desks. 

(2)  Same. 


Score: 

(1)  Roll     top    o 
ceptionally 
desk. 

(2)  Swivel  chair. 


ex- 
good 


Score:  5 
(o)  On  long  axis  of 
room  so  faced  that 
light  comes  from 
left  if  the  windows 
are  on  one  side 
only. 

(b)  20  inches  between 
rows;  36  inches 
between  seats  and 
black  boards;  24 
inches  between 
seats  and  window 
wall. 

(c)  So  far  as  possible 
rows  made  up  of 
seats  of  same  size. 

(d)  Same. 


Score:  5 
(a)  Closet    with    door 
and  shelves. 


Score:  5 
(a)  Wall  clock. 


Score:  5 
(a)  Room  at  least  6x8, 
located  near  stove 
with  provision  for 
storing  both  fuel 
and  kindling. 


(6)  Lighted;  ceiled 
side  walls  and  ceil- 
ing. 

(c)  Well  fitting  door 
effectively  separat- 
ing fuel  room  from 
class  room. 


1  The  seat  should  be  of  such  height  as  will  permit  the  pupil's  feet  to  rest 
squarely  on  the  floor,  and  the  desk  should  be  so  placed  that  he  can  write  easily 
while  sitting  upright. 

30 


The  Standards — Continued 


17.  Cloak  room  Score:  25 

(a)  Sanitary  wardrobes  within  the 
class  room  or  single  cloak  room 


(6)  Wall  space  per  pupil  at  least  8 
inches  with  hooks  adjusted  to 
size  of  children. 


(c)  So  located  as  to  be  under  di- 
rect supervision  of  teacher. 


18.  Work  room 


Score:  5 
(a)  Hooks  on  class  room 
walls. 


Score:  10 
(a)  Separate  cloak 

rooms  for  boys  and 
girls,  heated,  ven- 
tilated and  lighted. 
(6)  Wall  space  per  pu- 
pil at  least  8  inches 
with  hooks  ad- 
justed to  size  of 
children. 
(c)  Same. 


19.  Store  room  Score:  15 

(a)  Compartment  (e.  g.,  in  cloak 
room)  for  broom,  mop,  dust- 
pan, etc. 

(b)  Sufficiently  large  to  care  for  all 
materials  (except  teaching 
supplies)  needed  for  building. 


Score:  0 
(a)  Use  of  class  room, 
cloak    room,    vesti- 
bule, or  fuel  room  for 
this  purpose. 


Score:  20 
(a)  Size  at  least  12  x  10 

feet. 
(6)  Opening  from  class 

room  so  as  to  be 

under     supervision 

of  teacher. 

(c)  Well  lighted. 

(d)  Equipped  with 
benches,  tools, 
shelves  and  cabin- 
ets needed  for  man- 
ual training,  agri- 
culture, cooking, 
sewing,  or  such 
similar  practical 
subjects  as  are 
taught. 


Score:  5 


(a)  Closet. 


(6)  Sufficiently  large 
to  care  for  all  ma- 
terials (except 
teaching  supplies) 
needed  for  build- 
ing. 


20.  Library  Score:  20 

(a)  Bookcase  with  glass  doors. 


Score:  5 
(a)  Open  book  shelves. 


Score:  15 
(a)  Alcove  with  book- 
case or  built-in 
bookshelves  having 
glass  doors. 
(6)  Heated,  well 
lighted. 

(c)  Table  and  chairs. 

(d)  Separated  from 
class  room  by  cur- 
tain or  screen. 


21.  Teacher's  room 


Score:  10 
(a)  Room  opening  off 

class  room;  heated 

and  well  lighted. 
(6)  Size    at    least    50 

square  feet, 
(c)  Equipped    with 

comfortable   chair 

and  cot. 


31 


The  Standards — Continued 


22.  Playroom 

Score:  20 

(a)  Room  in  basement: 
substantial      floor; 
furnace    separated 
by        fire-resisting 
walls;        sufficient 
light;      ceiling     at 
least  8  feet  high,  or 

(b)  Where        movable 
chairs  are  provided 
for  the  class  room, 
it  may  be  used  for 
playroom. 

23.  Neighborhood  room 

Score:  25 
(a)  Use    of     basement 
class  room   (where 
seated    with    mov- 
able    chairs)       or 
other  room  if  fold- 
ing chairs  are  pro- 
vided. 

2 A.  Heat  and  ventilation     Score:  30 
(a)  Type: 

(1)  Jacketed  stove. 

(6)  Adequacy:             Score:  30 
(1)  Maintain    heat    at    68°    in 
every    part    of    room    and 
supply  30  cubic  feet  of  air 
per  pupil  per  minute. 
These  indicated  by: 
(o)  Grate  area  of  at  least 
210   square    inches    for 
room   containing    8,000 
cubic  feet  or  less. 
(6)  Fresh  air  intakes  of  at 
least  175  square  inches 
for     room     containing 
8,000  cubic  feet  or  less, 
(c)  Foul  air  flue  of  at  least 
240    square    inches    for 
room   containing    8,000 
cubic  feet  or  less, 
(c)  Heat  control:           Score:   10 
(1)  Thermometer. 

Score:  15 
(a)  Type: 

(1)  Unjacketed 
stove;      window 
ventilation  with- 
out          window 
boards. 

Score:  15 
(a)  Type: 

(1)  Furnace      with 
provision       for 
gravity  exhaust 
of  bad  air. 

25.  Fire  extinguisher 

Score:   10 
(a)   Hand    fire     extin- 
guisher. 

26.  Cleaning  system           Score:  20 
(a)  Sweeping  with   floor   brush   or 
broom     and     sweeping     com- 
pound or  well-oiled  floor. 
(6)  Dusting  with  oiled  cloth. 

Score:  5 
(a)  Dry  sweeping. 

(6)  Dusting     with     dry 
duster  or  dry  cloth. 

Score:  10 
(a)  Vacuum  sweeper. 

32 


The  Standards — Continued 


27.  Water  supply  Score:  25 

(a)  Source: 

(1)  Well  on  school  grounds  or 
within  200  yards  of  school- 
house. 

(2)  Located  at  least  100  feet 
from  nearest  barn,  out- 
house or  other  possible 
source  of  contamination; 
slope  away  from  well. 

(3)  Covered  with  concrete 
platform  resting  on  con- 
crete wall  sunk  at  least  two 
feet  in  ground. 

(4)  Analysis  of  water  at  least 
once  each  year. 

(b)  Drinking  facilities:    Score:  20 

(1)  Closed  water  jar  with 
faucet. 

(2)  Individual  drinking  cups 
with  closed  cabinet  for  keep- 
ing them;  or  paper  cups. 

(c)  Washing  facilities:    Score:  15 
(1)  Wash     basin     at     proper 

height     for     children;      in 
warm  room. 


(2)  Soap. 


(3)  Mirror. 

(4)  Individual  towels  or  paper 
towels. 


28.  Artificial  lighting         Score:   10 

(a)  Oil  lamps. 

(6)  Enough  in  class  room  to  permit 
reading  without  strain;  at 
least  one  light  in  each  cloak 
room,  inside  toilet  room,  etc. 


29.  Toilets  Score:  20 

(a)  Kind: 

(1)  Chemical  system,  or 

(2)  Septic  tank  system. 

(b)  Placement:  Score:  10 

(1)  In  rooms,  conveniently  lo- 
cated attached  to  the 
building. 

(2)  Boys'  and  girls'  toilets 
completely  separated  even 
as  to  approaches. 


(c)  Condition:  Score:  20 

(1)  Lighted  and  well  ventilated. 

(2)  Walls  and  ceiling  con- 
structed and  finished  as 
other  rooms  in  building. 

(3)  No  markings. 

(d)  Adequacy:  Score:   15 

(1)  One  seat  for  each  twenty- 
five  pupils  of  each  sex. 


Score  10 
(a)  Source: 

(1)  Well  about  quar- 
ter of  mile  away. 

(2)  Same. 


(3)  Same. 


Score:  5 
(b)  Drinking  facilities: 

(1)  Open  jar  or  pail. 

(2)  Same. 


Score:  5 
(c)  Washing  facilities: 

(1)  Wash  basin  in 
room  used  as 
combined  vesti- 
bule, fuel  room, 
etc. 

(2)  Same. 


(3)  Mirror. 

(4)  Common    towel. 


Score:  10 

(a)  Kind: 

(1)  Pit  privy,  one  for 
each  sex. 

Score:  10 

(b)  Placement: 

(1)  Toward  back  of 
school  grounds. 

(2)  Separated  from 
each  other  by  at 
least  50  feet. 

(3)  Effectively 
scrubbed. 


Score:  10 
(a)  Source: 

(1)  Community  or 
neighbor's 
water  system. 

(2)  Adequately 
protected 
against  freez- 
ing. 


Score:  10 
(b)  Drinking  facilities: 
(1)  Sanitary     bub- 
bling  fountain. 


Score:  5 
(c)  Washing  facilities: 
(1)  Porcelain   bowl 
with  drain. 


(2)  Liquid  soap  in 
automatic  con- 
tainer. 

(3)  Mirror. 

(4)  Individual 
towels  or  paper 
towels. 


Score:  10 

(a)  Electricity  or  gas. 

(b)  Same. 


Score:  10 
(a)  Kind: 

(1)  Flush  system. 


{d)  Adequacy: 

Score:  5 
(1)  One     seat     for 
each  15    pupils 
of  each  sex. 


33 


The  Standards — Continued 


30.  Telephone 


31.  Bell 

(a)  Hand  bell. 


Score:  5 


32.  First  aid  outfit  Score:   10 

(a)  Cabinet  with  bandages,  oint- 
ment, adhesive  plaster,  iodine, 
etc. 


33.  Mail  box  Score:  5 

(a)  Water  proof. 

(b)  Large    enough    for    bulletins, 
etc.,  addressed  to  school. 

(c)  Located  on  mail  route  at  point 
most  convenient  to  school. 


Score:  10 


Score:  5 
(a)  Large  bell. 


34.  Flag  and  pole 
(a)  On  building. 


Score:   10 


(b)  Equipped  with  rope  and  pulley. 

(c)  Flag  at  least  3x5  feet. 


Score:  5 
(a)  Metal  or  wood  pole 
in  front  yard  higher 
than  building. 
(6)  Same. 
(c)  Same. 


35.  Vestibule  Score:  20 

(a)  Size  at  least  6x8  feet. 

(b)  Substantial  floor;  inside  walls 
of  matched  lumber;  outside 
walls  same  as  building  proper. 

(c)  Well  lighted. 

The  vestibule  may  be  dis- 
pensed with  when  adequate 
protection  from  storms  is  pro- 
vided by  means  of  a  porch,  use 
of  weather  strips  on  door  or 
location  of  building. 


36.  Material  of  construction     Score:  25 
(a)  First  quality  lumber. 


Score:  5 
(a)  Logs  or  poor  qual- 
ity lumber. 


Score:  10 
(a)  Brick,  concrete  or 
tile. 


37.  Foundation  Score:   15 

(a)  Stone  (or  equivalent  local  ma- 
terial). 

(b)  Height:   18  to  30  inches. 


Score:  5 
(a)  Brick,  tile  or  con- 
crete. 
(6)  Height:    18  to  30 
inches. 


38.  Roof 

(a)  Shingle  roof. 


Score:  20 


Score: 
(a)  Paper  roof. 


Score:  10 
(a)  Slate  roof. 


39.  Condition  of  repair     Score:  30 
(a)  Paint  in  good  state  of  preser- 
vation. 
(6)  No      broken      window-panes, 

steps,  boards  on  siding,  etc. 
(c)  No  markings  on  buildings. 


40.  Location  on  grounds  Score:  20 
(a)  Building  so  located  that 

(1)  The  effectiveness  of  the 
grounds  for  play  purposes  is 
not  interfered  with,  e.  g., 
unless  grounds  are  con- 
siderably larger  than  the 
minimum  given  in  Item  43, 
the  building  should  be  to- 
ward one  side  and  the  front 
of  the  grounds. 

(2)  It  looks  well;  not  too  near 
the  road  nor  yet  too  far  back 
on  the  grounds. 


34 


The  Standards — Continued 


41.  Orientation*                 Score:  25 

(a)  Class  room  placed  so  as  to 

(1)  Receive      direct      sunlight 
some  time  during  the  day 
(not  north). 

(2)  Avoid  direct  sunlight  dur- 
i  ng  entire  day  (not  south). 

(b)  Fac  tors  to  be  considered: 
Whether    mornings   are   foggy 
(favoring    western    exposure) ; 
whether  high  hills  or  trees  af- 
fect   lighting;     whether    morn- 
ings are  less  cloudy  than  after- 
noons    (favoring    eastern    ex- 
posure) ;    direction  of  prevail- 
ing   winter    winds;     attractive 
outlook. 

Score:  10 
(a)  Northern   or   south- 
ern exposure. 

Score:  5 
(a)  General     east     or 
west  exposure  with 
angle  of  10-15  de- 
grees toward  south. 

42.  Architectural  appearance 

Score:  10 
(a)  Cottage  type. 

43.  Size  of  grounds             Score:  25 
(a)  About  160  square  rods — suffi- 
cient to  provide: 

(1)  Site  for  building. 

(2)  Small  lawn  with  a  few  trees 
and  some  shrubbery. 

(3)  Playground    providing    for 
games  and  apparatus  indi- 
cated   in  Item  49.     Where 
conditions  make  necessary 
a  barn  or  shed  for    horses 
or  cars,  more  space  must  be 
provided. 

Score:  5 
(a)  About      20     square 
rods. 

Score:  15 
(a)  320  square  rods. 

44.  Shape  of  grounds          Score:   10 
(a)  Of   such   shape    that   there   is 
little  waste  space.     In  general 
a  rectangular  form  is  most  de- 
sirable. 

45.  Slope  and  drainage      Score:  25 
(a)  Natural  elevation  with  grounds 

sloping  away  from  building. 
(6)  Grounds  well  drained. 
(c)  Quick-drying,  fertile  soil. 

46.  Condition                           Score:  20 

(a)  No  ashes  or  other  refuse. 

(b)  No  weeds. 

Score:  15 
(a)  Lawn  mowed;  trees 
and   shrubbery 
trimmed;     flowers. 

47.  Fencing                            Score:  5 
(a)  Board      or     woven-wire    field 

fence. 
(6)  About  3'A  feet  high. 

Score:  0 
(a)  Barbed  wire. 

(6)  Same. 

Score:  5 
(a)  Heavy  woven  wire. 

(6)  Same. 

48.  Walks                           Score:  10 
(a)  Gravel   or  cinder  walks,  well- 
drained,  from  road  to  building, 
building  to  well,  etc.,  or 
(6)  Board  walks  in  good  condition. 

Score:  5 
(a)  Cement  walks. 

1  The  orientation  of  a  building  is  the  direction  from  which  light  enters  the 
class  room,  not  the  direction  which  the  building  faces. 

35 


The  Standards — Continued 


49.  Playground  apparatus      Score:  25 
(a)  At  least  the  following  or  equiv- 
alent  apparatus:     swing;  sand 
pile;  teeter   board;     horizontal 
bar;  volley  ball  and  net;   base- 
ball   and    bat.      Where   school 
has  not  over  10  pupils  less  may 
be  accepted. 

Score:   10 
(a)  In  addition  to  min- 
imum: giant  stride, 
basket      ball      and 
standards;  slide. 

50.  Environment                 Score:  25 
(a)  Freedom  from   nuisances  such 

as  odors  from  barnyards,  etc. 
(6)  Freedom  from  dangers,  such  as 

railroads,  high  cliffs,  dangerous 

bodies  of  water,  etc. 
(c)  A   reasonably   attractive   view 

considering    the    opportunities 

of  the  vicinity  in  this  respect. 

51.  Accessibility                  Score:  25 

(a)  Located  near  main  highway. 

(b)  As  near  center  of  district  as 
possible  but  not  over  IK  miles 
from     farthest     home     except 
where  transportation  at  public 
expense  is  provided. 

Modifications  for  Two-Teacher  Buildings 


16.  Fuel  room  Score:  20 

(a)  Fuel  room  in  basement  located 
near  furnace. 


24.  Heat  and  ventilation 

(a)  Type:  Score:  30 

(1)  Furnace  with  provision  for 
gravity  exhaust  of  impure 
air. 


(6)  Adequacy:  Score:  30 

(1)  Maintain    heat    at    68°    in 
every  part  of  the  room. 


49.  Playground  apparatus  Score:  25 
(a)  At  least  the  following  or  the 
equivalent  apparatus:  sand 
pile;  2  swings;  2  teeter  boards; 
horizontal  bars;  volley  ball 
and  net;   baseball  and  bat. 


Score:  10 
(a)  Outside  fuel  shed; 
well  lighted;  sub- 
stantial structure; 
painted  to  match 
school  building. 


(a)  Type:  Score:  20 
(1)  Jacketed  stove 
with  provision 
for  the  bringing 
in  of  fresh  air 
and  the  carrying 
out  of  impure  air. 


2.  A  General  Measure  of  These  Buildings 
Table  1  shows  the  distribution  of  the  one-teacher  schools  ac- 
cording to  essential  and  additional  credit.  As  may  be  seen,  the 
median  score  is  608  -f-  14,  that  is,  an  essential  standard  score  of  608 
with  an  additional  score  of  14.  These  facts  make  it  clear  that  the 
one-teacher  school  building  in  New  York  is  far  short  of  meeting 

36 


h  Ol  CN  f^  tN 


•  ^  CN   •  ^  CN 


-H   CN   ^H   .-.   i-i 


■  ^h   ■  cm  iO  r*3  i-" 


lO  IT)  -^f  <T)   •  (N  (S 


O  LO  O  00  r*-  *-i 


lO^*«-i©LO<N'<*'CN*-i 


H  f)  ^  l/)  !*)  rt 


riTf^HOHNflOTilO't 

^r^OOcOcCt^-iN*— 


(N    IO    O    lO    N 


*-i    CN    ^    *C    -^    rO 


O   ^    &>    ^   ^-    t|"    c^    v   o>   "t   o>    t 


o>    C\    00    CO 


r-*  o   O   10   10   *rr   ■* 


C\  O^  0\  ^  O'  ^ 
0\  t  ^  *t  CN  t- 
«0    fO    N    (S    H     JJ 


-.  1  Jl     '     I 

OOOOOOOOQ 


<-<    ©\    O    00    CO 


O    u->    O    iO 


r-OOiOiO^^ror*} 


Sp 


37 


standards  that  may  be  set  as  reasonable,  and  suggest  a  problem 
that  should  challenge  the  best  effort  of  rural  communities.  Not 
only  are  the  scores  low  in  general  but  they  show  a  remarkable  de- 
gree of  uniformity.  Thus  one-half  the  buildings  are  found  between 
543  +  4  and  674  -f-  23,  a  difference  of  only  131  +  19  points.  Only 
.35  of  1  percent  have  a  score  of  900  or  over  and  only  1.4  percent 
a  score  of  under  400.  It  is  of  interest  and  significance  to  see  how 
little  the  schools  are  entitled  to  in  the  way  of  additional  credit.  A 
school  entirely  modern  as  to  construction  and  facilities  provided 
would  readily  secure  additional  credit  of  from  275  to  300  points. 


i Possible  score       ■■  Actual  score 


♦-Addltlonal- 

300     200      100 

l=teacher 
ochoola 


Diagram  2. — Median  scores  for  one-  and  two-teacher  buildings.  The  essen- 
tial standard  score  is  indicated  at  the  right  of  the  heavy  vertical  line;  the  addi- 
tional score  to  the  left  of  this  line 


The  two-teacher  schools  (Table  2)  are  better,  though  they,  too, 
fall  considerably  short  of  the  essential  standards.  The  median 
score  is  755  +  29,  an  improvement  of  150  +  15,  not  counting 
certain  higher  standards  required  of  the  two-teacher  buildings  on  a 
few  items  (see  p.  36).  The  middle  50  percent  of  these  schools  is 
spread  over  a  somewhat  larger  section  of  the  scale,  i.  e.,  166  +  39  as 
compared  with  131  -f-  19  in  the  one-teacher  buildings.  There  is  a 
larger  percentage  of  buildings  with  a  score  of  900  or  better — 9.1 
percent.    Here  again. the  additional  credit  is  small. 

3.  Problems  in  the  Use  of  These  General  Measures 
In  the  interpretation  of  the  scores  given  above  two  practical 
questions  are  likely  to  be  raised.    (1)  What  score  should  be  set  as 
the  index  of  a  reasonably  satisfactory  building?     (2)  What  score 

38 


NwOifO^OOO-iO 


o  - 


M   N      .   es    *+ 


O    W}        .    rt 


-<'*")««•"«•- 


«    «    ■*    —    (N    •*    ■* 


n    rt    M    (<) 


S"2- 

He" 


°.    0»00»0©»00»OOiOO»00»00»OrS 


39 


should  be  used  as  the  standard  for  condemning  buildings  as  pro- 
vided by  law? 

(1)  In  connection  with  the  first  question  it  should  be  recalled 
that  the  essential  standards  were  frankly  planned  so  as  to  require 
only  what  is  both  desirable  and  attainable.  It  follows,  then,  that 
the  goal  of  every  community  should  be  the  1,000  points  of  a  perfect 
essential  standard  score.  The  progressive  community  will  have  its 
efforts  shown  by  the  additional  points  that  it  receives. 

(2)  In  a  later  section  (II,  C)  it  will  be  pointed  out  that  one  of  the 
causes  for  the  present  situation  is  undoubtedly  the  indefiniteness  of 
the  law  that  provides  for  condemnation  by  the  district  superin- 
tendent. It  is  there  suggested  that  the  least  that  the  state  ought 
to  accept  is  a  total  of  610  credits,  these  to  be  certain  specified  items 
(stated  in  II,  C)  without  which  the  education  of  children  is  likely 
to  suffer. 

4.  Are  the  Types  of  Facilities  Provided  in  Accordance  with 
Modern  Hygienic  Requirements? 

The  scores  given  above  show  that  in  general  New  York  one-  and 
two-teacher  buildings  fall  far  short  of  meeting  those  requirements 
that  now  are  rather  commonly  accepted  for  modern  school  build- 
ings of  this  size.  In  this  and  the  following  two  sections  will  be 
presented  more  detailed  evidence  on  this  matter.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  both  for  economy  of  space  and  effectiveness  of  comparison  data 
regarding  one-  and  two-teacher  schools  are  presented  together. 
The  percentage  of  cases  in  which  there  were  no  data  is  given  in 
order  that  the  reader  may  form  a  conclusion  as  to  the  complete- 
ness of  the  data  from  which  the  percentages  are  computed. 

(a)  Amount  and  Quality  of  Natural  Lighting. — One  of  the 
first  requirements  for  a  school  building  is  a  sufficient  amount  of 
properly  distributed  light.  The  commonly  accepted  standard  for 
such  a  climate  as  that  of  New  York  is  that  the  glass  area  of  the 
windows  should  be  from  one-fifth  to  one-fourth  that  of  the  floor 
area.  The  standard  used  in  this  survey  was  that  the  proportion 
should  be  at  least  one-fifth,  or,  where  there  is  considerable  shade, 
one-fourth.  Table  3  shows  how  far  short  of  this  standard  many 
schools  fall. 

40 


Table  3. — Proportion  that  Glass  Area  is  of  Floor  Space 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied1 
Proportion  One  Teacher     Two  Teachers2 

1:2 1.0%  2.9% 

1:3 1.3  6.4 

1:4 5.1  13.7 

1:5 11.2  22.3 

1:6 14.1  16.5 

1:7 18.6  5.8 

1:8 14.0  10.1 

1:9 13.0  10.8 

1:10 10.9  2.2 

1:11 4.5  3.6 

1:12 2.9  4.3 

1:13 1.5  .7 

1:14 9  .7 

1:15 5 

1:16 3 

1:17 1 

1:18 1 

The  median  one-teacher  school  falls  in  the  1 : 7  group ;  the 
median  two-teacher  school,  in  the  1:6  group.  The  extremely  low 
proportions  found  in  both  types  of  school  cannot  be  excused  no 


Percent 


i  i   i   i   i   * 


Diagram  3. 


-Proportion  that  glass  area  is  of  floor  space  in  one-  and  two- 
teacher  schools.    The  standard  is  at  least  1  :  5 


matter  what  the  cost  may  be  to  community  or  state  for  making  the 
necessary  improvements. 

1  The  reader  will  recall  that  there  were  1,438  one-teacher  and  77  two-teacher 
schools. 

2  In  this  and  similar  cases,  where  conditions  may  vary  for  each  of  the  two  class 
rooms,  each  room  is  counted  as  a  unit. 

4i 


Not  only  is  the  glass  area  too  small  in  the  majority  of  schools, 
but  the  shades  used  are  commonly  such  as  to  reduce  the  amount  of 
light  that  might  otherwise  be  available.    Thus  Table  4  shows  that 

Table  4. — Color  and  Type  of  Shades 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
One  Teacher        Two  Teachers 
I.  Color: 

Translucent 14.0%  29.6% 

Opaque 86.0  70.4 

II.  Type: 

None 7.1%  6.7% 

Adjustable 0.0  2.6 

Double  roller 6  6.7 

Single  roller  from  bottom 6  6.7 

Single  roller  from  center .1  0.0 

Single  roller  from  top 91.1  77.3 

Two  or  more  kinds 5  0.0 

86  percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  70.4  percent  of  the  two-teacher 
schools  have  opaque  shades  and  that  it  is  almost  universal  to  find 
a  type  of  shade  that  cannot  be  moved  from  one  part  of  the  window 
as  the  angle  from  which  the  sun's  rays  come  changes.  The  single 
roller  fastened  at  the  top  is  reasonably  satisfactory  when  the  sun 
is  high,  and  the  direct  rays  may  be  eliminated  by  shading  a  small 


Translucent 


l=teacher 
schools 


2=teacher 
schools 


70.4 


29-.  6 


Diagram  4.- 


-Translucency  of  shades  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools  as  indi- 
cated by  the  color 


section  of  the  upper  part  of  the  window.  It  is  highly  unsatis- 
factory when  the  sun  is  low,  for  the  reason  that  the  shade  must  be 
pulled  down  to  near  the  bottom  of  the  window  to  shut  out  the  rays. 
This,  of  course,  reduces  greatly  the  amount  of  light  that  enters  the 
schoolroom.  The  situation  is  made  still  worse  by  the  frequency 
with  which  broken  shade  rollers  are  found.  It  is  not  uncommon  to 
find  half  the  rollers  in  a  building  in  such  condition  that  either  the 

42 


shades  cannot  be  used  at  all  or  they  remain  from  one-fourth  to 
one-half  the  way  down  the  window  throughout  the  day. 

The  quality  of  the  light  is  also  of  considerable  importance. 
Modern  requirements  call  for  lighting  from  one  side  only — the  left. 
This  prevents  the  casting  of  shadows  by  shoulders,  hand,  or  pencil 
when  considerable  light  comes  from  the  pupil's  rear  or  right. 
Lighting  from  both  left  and  right  tends  to  produce  a  reflection  that 
is  irritating  to  the  eyes.  Light  in  the  rear  is  further  harmful  be- 
cause the  teacher  must  face  it  a  good  part  of  the  day,  while  light 
in  the  front,  where  all  the  pupils  must  face  it  constantly,  is  even 
more  disastrous.  Since  most  of  New  York's  smaller  school  build- 
ings were  erected  at  a  time  when  such  facts  were  not  given  great 
weight,  it  is  to  be  expected  that  conditions  will  not  be  satisfactory. 
Table  5  gives  the  details. 

Table  5. — Window  Placement 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Windows  Placed                                        One  Teacher  Two  Teachers 

On  left  only 3.4%  23.3% 

On  right  only 0.0  0.0 

On  left  and  rear 8.7  39.4 

On  left  and  right 21.6  8.4 

On  right  and  rear 4  2.8 

On  left,  right  and  rear 50.5  21.1 

On  left,  right  and  front 3.6  0.0 

On  left,  rear,  and  front 1.1  4.3 

On  right,  rear,  and  front 2  .7 

On  left,  rear,  right  and  front 10.3  0.0 

No  data 2  0.0 

Only  3.4  percent  of  the  one-teacher  schools  meet  the  standard. 
The  two-teacher  schools  are  better,  having  23.3  percent  lighted  from 
the  left  only.  The  next  most  satisfactory  type  of  window  place- 
ment, left  and  rear,  exists  in  8.7  percent  and  39.4  percent  of  the 
cases  respectively.  A  further  study  of  the  table  will  make  it  clear 
that  the  window  placement  is  far  better  in  the  two-teacher  schools. 

A  situation  affecting  both  the  amount  and  the  quality  of  the 
lighting  is  the  color  scheme.  Dark  colors  are  to  be  avoided  because 
they  absorb  the  light,  while  pure  white  causes  undue  reflection. 
The  standard  used  in  this  study — "some  light  reflecting  color, 
pleasing  in  its  general  effect" — is  certainly  none  too  high,  yet  as 
Table  29,  item  8,  shows,  only  32  percent  of  the  one-teacher  schools 

43 


,0a  1  side 


One-teacher  schools 


Two-teacher  schools 


Diagram  5. 


-Window  placement  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools, 
one  side  is  the  standard 


Light  from 


receive  81  percent  or  more  of  complete  essential  standard  credit. 
Only  1  percent  approximate  the  ideal  as  to  color  scheme.  (See 
Table  30.) 

(b)  Heating  and  Ventilation. — The  old-fashioned  unjacketed 
stove,  without  facilities  for  distributing  the  heat,  for  receiving 
regularly  a  supply  of  fresh  air,  or  for  discharging  the  foul  air,  per- 
sists in  New  York  state.  However,  71.3  percent  of  the  two- teacher 
schools  have  either  a  furnace  or  a  jacketed  stove. 

Table  6. — Type  of  Heating  and  Ventilating  Apparatus  Used 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
Kind  One  Teacher         Two  Teachers 

Furnace 5.1%  56.0% 

Jacketed  stove 8.7  15.3 

Gas  heater 2  0.0 

Unjacketed  stove 85.2  26.0 

No  data 8  2.7 


As  a  result  of  the  type  of  apparatus  used,  a  large  proportion  of 
the  schools  depend  upon  window  and  door  ventilation.  Of  the 
one-teacher  schools,  83.3  percent  have  no  fresh  air  intake  and  80.3 
percent  have  no  foul  air  outlet.  Of  the  two-teacher  schools,  22  per- 
cent have  no  intake  and  20  percent  no  outlet.  Only  31  percent 
of  the  one-teacher  schools  have  that  necessary  means  for  securing 
an  impersonal  test  of  the  amount  and  the  distribution  of  heat — a 

44 


Gas  heater 
Furnace  5. 


One-teacher  schools  Two-teacher  schools 

Diagram  6. — Types  of  heating  apparatus  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 

thermometer.     The  situation  is  much  better  in  the  two-teacher 

schools. 

Table  7. — Number  of  Thermometers  in  Schools 

Percentage  of  AH  Schools  Studied 
One  Teacher         Two  Teachers 

Yes 31.0%  69.3% 

No 69.0  30.7 

(c)  Water  Supply  and  Drinking  and  Washing  Facilities. — 
A  supply  of  pure  water  with  means  for  preventing  contagion  through 
proper  provision  for  drinking  and  washing  is  a  necessity.  A  neigh- 
bor's well  is  the  common  source.  There  is  no  objection  to  this  if 
the  water  is  pure  and  if  it  is  not  necessary  to  carry  it  too  far.    The 

Table  8. — Source  of  Water  Supply  for  Schools 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Source                                    One  Teacher  Two  Teachers 

Water  system 0.3%  8.0% 

Well  on  grounds 11.6  57.3 

Neighbor's  well  under  200  yds 43.5  22.7 

Neighbor's  well  200  yds.  or  over. .  .   30.8  12.0 

Spring 12.1  0.0 

Brook 2  0.0 

No  data 1.5  0.0 

water  is  seldom  analyzed  so  that  the  test  of  purity  is  a  practical 
one — whether  or  not  illness  results.  It  is  regrettable  that  the  more 
economical  test  of  analysis  is  not  followed  more  frequently,  espe- 
cially in  view  of  the  relatively  large  number  of  open  springs  that 

45 


Table  9. — Certain  Conditions  Affecting  the  Supply  of  Pure  Water 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
One  Teacher         Two  Teachers 
I.  Distance  of  well   from   possible 
source  of  contamination 

Under  50  feet 13.5%  6.7% 

51-99  feet 14.5  4.0 

100  feet  or  over 61.5  73.3 

No  data 10.5  16.0 

II.  Is   well   protected   from   surface 
drainage? 

Yes 77.2%  75.0% 

No 18.9  13.9 

No  data 3.9  11.1 

III.  Is  water  analyzed? 

Yes 1.4%  5.4% 

No 77.4  79.7 

No  data 21.2  14.9 

are  found  in  the  state.     Table  9  gives  significant  data  bearing 

upon  the  question  of  contamination  of  water  at  its  source.    As  to 
whether  or  not  100  feet  from  a  possible  source  of  contamination 

Table  10. — Means  for  Preventing  Contagion  Through  Drinking  or 

Washing 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

One  Teacher  Two  Teachers 
I.  Facilities  for  drinking 

Fountain 5.6%  24.3% 

Closed  jar 41.2  39.8 

Covered  pail 3.1  0.0 

Open  jar  or  pail 42.8  12.8 

Go  to  well 2.1  14.1 

No  data 2.1  9.0 

None 3.1  0.0 

II.  Drinking  cups 

Paper  cups 1.8%  4.1% 

Individual  cups 28.8  21.9 

Either  of  these 49.9  46.6 

Neither  of  these 16.6  15.1 

No  data 2.9  12.3 

III.  Are  individual  cups  adequately 

protected  when  not  in  use? 

Yes 26.7%  29.0% 

No 68.2  49.3 

Nodata 5.1  21.7 

IV.  Towels 

Paper 5.6%  10.7% 

Individual 3.6  0.0 

Either  of  these 17.8  24.0 

Neither  of  these 61.4  64.0 

Nodata 6.9  1.3 

None 4.7  0.0 

46 


Percent  of  all  schools  studied 
One-teacher  Two-teacher 


I.  Facilities  for 
Drinking 

'42.8 
12.8 


II.  Drinking  Cups 
Paper  or  i  80.5 


individual 


Neither  of  these 


72.6   C 


No  data 


f  16.6 
\  15.1 

/    2.9 

\12.3 


III.  Protection  of  In- 
dividual Cups 

Not  protected 
Protected 
No  data 


I  49.3  C 

/  26.7  ■ 

\29.0  C 

f    5.1  ■ 

\  21.7  C 


IV.  Towels 
Neither  paper        /61.4  I 
nor  individual    \  64.0  C 


Paper  or 
individual 


None 


J  27.0 
\34.7  C 

\    0.0 


No  data  {    f%  "* 

Diagram  7.— Drinking  facilities  and  towels  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 

47 


insures  protection  depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  soil  and  the 
slope  of  the  ground,  but  it  offers  at  least  a  tentative  standard. 

The  open  water-pail,  the  common  cup,  and  the  common  towel 
are  still  in  evidence.  Either  paper  cups  or  individual  cups  are 
found  in  a  commendable  percentage  of  schools,  but  unfortunately 
the  good  effect  of  this  is  offset  by  lack  of  proper  protection  for  indi- 
vidual cups  when  not  in  use.  A  simple  cabinet  with  a  definite 
place  assigned  each  pupil  would  make  it  unnecessary  for  cups  to  be 
kept  upon  or  in  the  desks  where  dust  can  settle  upon  them.  Most 
satisfactory  of  all  is  the  water  jar  with  attached  bubbling  fountain. 
The  better  grades  of  these  can  be  secured  for  around  $20  and  in 
time  will  be  considered  as  a  necessary  part  of  the  schoolroom  equip- 
ment. It  is  astonishing  that  paper  towels  are  not  more  commonly 
used  when  one  considers  the  extent  to  which  they  reduce  the  labor 
of  laundering  and  insure  the  control  of  contagion  from  this  source. 
The  expenditure  of  the  eight  or  ten  dollars  necessary  to  provide 
these  towels  for  a  school  of  10  pupils  is  a  genuine  economy. 

Table  11. — Is  Floor  Oiled? 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
One  Teacher      Two  Teachers 

No 58.0%  32.0% 

Yes — where  dry  sweeping  is  used ..  .   36.5  61.1 

Yes — where  compound  is  used 1.6  6.9 

No  data 3.9  0.0 

.No  data  3.9^ 


1= teacher  schools  2=teacher  schools 

Diagram  8. — Oiled  floors  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 
48 


(d)  Cleaning  System. — Unhygienic  methods  of  cleaning  the 
schoolroom  are  common.  The  oiled  floor  is  found  in  only  38.1 
percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  in  68  percent  of  the  two-teacher 
schools.  Dry  sweeping  and  dry  dusting  are  still  the  prevailing 
methods. 

Table  12. — Methods  of  Sweeping  and  Dusting 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
One  Teacher         Two  Teachers 
I.  Sweeping 

Compound 4.3%  10.8% 

Dry 95.0  78.4 

No  data 7  10.8 

II.  Dusting 

Oiled  cloth 9.5%  30.7% 

Damp  cloth 10.6  9.3 

Dry  cloth 77.7  54.7 

None 1.4  0.0 

No  data 8  5.3 


SWEEPING 


DUSTING 


No  data 
Compound- 


No  data 
None 


Dry  cloth 


1= teacher    2=teacher 
schools        schools 


1= teacher    2=teacher 
schools        schools 


Diagram  9. — Methods  of  sweeping  and  dusting  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 

(e)  First  Aid  Outfit. — Table  13  shows  that  only  10.3  percent 
of  one-teacher  and  12.2  percent  of  two-teacher  schools  have  a  first 
aid  outfit  of  any  kind.  One  hundred  and  eleven  of  the  146  one- 
teacher  schools  having  these  oufits  are  found  in  6  supervisory  dis- 
tricts, indicating  what  may  be  done  through  leadership. 

4  49 


The  value  of  such  an  outfit  for  giving  immediate  attention  to 
cuts,  bruises,  simple  illnesses,  etc.,  certainly  justifies  the  expenditure 
of  the  three  or  four  dollars  involved. 

Table  13. — Number  of  Schools  Having  a  First  Aid  Outfit 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
One  Teacher       Two  Teachers 

Yes 10.3%  12.2% 

No 89.7  87.8 

(/)  Toilets. — As  a  minimum  standard  for  outdoor  toilets  the 
statutes  require  that  at  least  two  suitable  and  convenient  water 
closets,  entirely  separated  from  each  other  and  having  separate 
means  of  access  with  the  approaches  separated  by  a  substantial 
close  fence  not  less  than  seven  feet  in  height,  must  be  provided  in 
each  school  district. 

In  1916  an  order  was  issued  by  the  Department  calling  attention 
to  the  unsatisfactory  state  of  outdoor  toilets  and  announcing  that 
an  approved  system  of  sanitary  closets  would  be  required  in  the 
approval  of  plans  for  new  buildings  or  for  the  remodeling  of  old 
buildings;  that  all  public  schools  must  be  provided  with  such 
facilities  before  September  1,  1918,  except  where  the  schoolhouse 
is  unfit  for  use  and  consolidation  is  to  be  expected  or  a  contract 
entered  into  or  where  the  district  valuation  is  below  $20,000  and 
the  attendance  small ;  and  that  where  it  becomes  necessary  to  pro- 
vide new  toilet  facilities  before  that  date,  such  facilities  must  be 
of  the  approved  type.  Four  types  are  now  included  in  the  approved 
list:  flush;  dry  closet;  chemical;  and  a  special  form  of  the  septic 
tank  known  as  the  L.  R.  S.  toilet.  The  chemical  is  the  type  that 
has  been  receiving  most  attention  in  the  small  schools  of  the  state 
and  it  is  this  type  that  is  meant  when  the  term  sanitary  is  used. 

While  many  communities  proceeded  at  once  to  meet  the  require- 
ment, there  were  a  large  number  that  did  not.  Some  declined  or 
neglected  to  do  so  because  they  considered  such  an  order  an  undue 
exercise  of  state  authority;  some  failed  to  see  the  need  of  improved 
conditions;  some  objected  to  the  forms  of  toilets  prescribed;  some 
claimed  financial  inability  on  one  ground  or  another  even  though 
districts  under  $20,000  valuation  were  not  required  to  make  such 
improvements.    Whatever  the  reason  assigned,  it  is  clear  that  back 

5° 


of  it  all  was  the  failure  of  patrons  to  realize  the  necessity  for  remedy- 
ing existing  conditions.  Had  the  facts  regarding  conditions  such  as 
the  present  writer  has  seen — unclean,  badly  marked,  poorly  venti- 
lated and  lighted,  with  inadequate  means  of  separating  the  sexes — 
been  presented  to  parents,  they  would  certainly  have  demanded 
improvement. 

The  outdoor  toilet  still  predominates  in  the  one-teacher  schools, 
as  Table  14  indicates.    The  flush  toilet  is,  of  course,  not  feasible  in 

Table  14. — Kinds  of  Toilets 

Percentages  of  All  Schools  Studied 
One  Teacher  Two  Teachers 

Flush 0.3%  12.3% 

Sanitary 35.2  54.8 

Outdoor 63.8  32.9 

No  data 7 


Flush  «3#%  .No  data 


One-teacher  schools  Two-teacher  schools 

Diagram  10. — Kinds  of  toilets  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 


many  schools  in  the  open  country  because  of  the  heavy  expense 
for  installing  pressure  tanks. 

Is  the  sanitary  toilet  an  improvement?  There  are  at  least  eight 
important  ends  that  are  to  be  desired  in  any  system  of  toilets: 
(1)  Cleanliness;  (2)  control  of  the  spread  of  disease  through  flies, 
etc. ;  (3)  facilities  that  do  not  permit  weather  conditions  to  become 
a  deterrent  to  the  full  use  of  those  facilities;   (4)  freedom  from  de- 

5i 


facement;   (5)  easy  control  by  the  teacher;  (6)  complete  seclusion; 
(7)  sufficient  ventilation;    (8)  sufficient  light. 

Facts  collected  in  the  scoring  of  buildings  throw  light  upon  the 
effectiveness  of  attaining  certain  of  these  ends  through  different 
types  of  toilets.    Thus  Table  14A  shows  decidedly  better  conditions 

Table  14A. — Comparison  of  the  Effectiveness  of  Different  Types  of 
Toilets  as  to  Seclusion,  Lighting,  Ventilation,  and  General  Con- 
dition 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

One  Teacher 

Two  Teachers 

Chemical 

Outdoor 

Flush 

Chemical 

Outdoor 

Flush 

1.  Is  there  sufficient 

seclusion? 

Yes 

No 

No  data 

2.  Are  they  well 

lighted? 

Yes 

No 

No  data 

3.  Are  they  well 

ventilated? 

Yes 

No 

No  data 

4.  General  condition 

Satisfactory  .  .  . 
Unsatisfactory 
No  data 

93.2% 
5.2 
1.6 

95.5% 

3.8 

.7 

91.2% 
7.8 
1.0 

88.6% 
10.2 
1.2 

57.5% 
40.4 
2.1 

29.7% 
68.5 
1.8 

25.3% 
72.7 
2.0 

25.7% 
73.3 
1.0 

100% 

100% 

100% 
100% 

92.7% 
2.4 
4.9 

100% 

95.1% 
4.9 

88.0% 
12.0 

69.6% 
30.4 

47.8% 
52.2 

43.5% 
56.5 

34.8% 
65.2 

100% 

100% 

87.5% 
12.5 

87.5% 
12.5 

regarding  seclusion,  light,  ventilation,  and  general  condition  where 
there  are  sanitary  toilets.  It  is  also  clear  that  conditions  are  not 
perfect  where  this  type  is  found. 

The  reason  for  the  showing  on  seclusion,  lighting,  and  ventila- 
tion is  undoubtedly  due  in  large  part  to  the  requirements  that  the 
state  has  set  for  the  installation  of  the  sanitary  toilet.    These  are: 

"  1.  The  closet  or  toilet  must  be  in  a  room  attached  to  and  made 
a  part  of  the  school  building. 

52 


"2.  The  walls  and  ceiling  of  this  room  must  be  constructed  and 
finished  in  like  manner  as  other  rooms  of  the  building. 

"3.  In  all  cases  the  rooms  must  be  well  lighted  and  ventilated. 

"4.  Toilet  rooms  must  be  heated  in  all  cases  where  it  is  prac- 
ticable to  do  so. 

"5.  Before  constructing  sanitary  closets,  a  simple  sketch  of 
the  rooms  and  approaches  and  a  description  of  the  closet  must  be 
submitted  to  the  State  Department  of  Education  for  approval. 

SUFFICIENT                                                           Per  cen* 
SECLUSION                          1= teacher  schools                 2=teacher  schools 
Flush  toilet  ICO MHHMHBHMH      wii f 


Chemical  toilet       93 ■■■■■■■  93  tr 

Outdoor  toilet        5BIHHDHMI  70 C: 


WELL  LIGHTED 

Flush  toilet  lcomma^mmmmmaam  100  c 

Chemical  toilet  961^^^MHi^^H  100  C 

Outdoor  toilet  30MMB  47  c 


WELL  VENTILATED 

Flush  toilet  lOOHHlHHBMHHHi       881  I 

Chemical  toilet      91  ■■■■■■■MM  95 1  ~» 

Outdoor  toilet        ,15  HM  44  1  ~i 

GENERAL  CONDITION 
SATISFACTORY 

Flush  toilet  100 ■■■■■■       fifli  -I 

Chemical  toilet       89  f^BMflHOMHBKi  E3  I — "  "1 


Outdoor  toilet         a6flHH  35  C 


Diagram  11. — Effectiveness  of  different  kinds  of  toilets  in  one-  and  two-teacher 

schools 


"6.  Provision  must  be  made  for  the  ventilation  of  receptacles 
by  means  of  ventilators  extending  through  the  roof. 

"7.  There  must  be  a  thoroughly  well-lighted,  ventilated  ap- 
proach or  anteroom  leading  to  the  closet  from  the  schoolroom  or 
common  corridor  or  hallway  of  the  building.  If  of  sufficient  size, 
the  anteroom  may  serve  also  as  coat  room. 

"8.  All  receptacles  must  be  of  a  type  to  be  emptied  outside  of 

53 


class  rooms,  recitation  rooms,  hallways  and  toilet  rooms,  and  the 
construction  must  be  such  as  to  facilitate  this  process. 

"9.  The  vaults  must  be  tight  so  as  to  render  the  entrance  of 
flies,  mosquitoes  and  other  insects  absolutely  impossible. 

"  10.  Seats  must  be  hinged  and  made  to  close  automatically." 

Similar  results  as  to  these  three  factors  could  be  secured  through 
the  outdoor  toilet  if  proper  care  were  taken.  As  the  facts  show, 
however,  it  is  far  from  unusual  to  find  such  toilets  completely 
without  ventilation,  except  such  as  comes  through  general  diffu- 
sion; without  light,  except  that  which  may  come  through  the  door 
or  cracks  due  to  ill-fitting  boards;  and  without  seclusion,  because 
they  face  directly  upon  the  road,  because  the  toilets  of  the  two  sexes 
are  placed  practically  together,  or  because  some  of  the  boards  in  the 
close  fence  of  the  approaches  have  not  been  replaced.  We  thus  see 
again  the  need  of  properly  enforced  state  standards  or  an  aroused 
public  opinion. 

Of  the  eight  ends  set  up  as  desirable,  numbers  5,  7  and  8  may 
be  secured  through  proper  methods  of  installation  (plus,  in  the  case 
of  ventilation,  proper  care  in  deodorizing)  whether  the  sanitary  or 
the  outdoor  type  is  used.  Numbers  1  and  4  are  largely  a  matter 
of  care  on  the  part  of  the  children  and  the  community  and  so  may 
be  accomplished  through  either  type,  though  the  better  control 
possible  in  the  case  of  the  sanitary  toilet  will  affect  somewhat  the 
tendency  to  defacement.  Numbers  3  and  5  alone  seem  to  be 
entirely  dependent  upon  the  type.  The  sanitary  toilet,  which 
under  the  New  York  requirements  must  be  a  part  of  the  building, 
is  heated  at  least  indirectly;  the  outdoor,  of  course,  not  at  all 
under  ordinary  conditions.  No  proof  can  be  offered  as  to  the 
extent  to  which  ill  health  in  later  life  is  traceable  to  the  reluctance 
on  the  part  of  children  to  use  the  toilet  fully  during  bad  weather, 
but  it  is  probably  considerable.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  the 
sanitary  toilet,  being  within  doors,  is  more  fully  under  teacher  con- 
trol. Number  2  is  secured  partly  through  care  and  partly  through 
type.  The  outdoor  closet,  when  lime  or  similar  material  is  regularly 
used,  becomes  less  of  a  menace  through  the  spread  of  disease,  but 
it  does  not  equal  the  properly  cared  for  sanitary  toilet  in  this 
respect. 

54 


In  brief,  then,  the  situation  is  this:  Seclusion,  light,  and  ventila- 
tion may  be  secured  through  either  type  of  toilet,  depending  upon 
the  plans  of  installation  and,  in  the  case  of  ventilation,  upon  the 
exercise  of  reasonable  care.  Comparison  shows  clearly  superior 
conditions  at  present  under  the  sanitary  type  due  probably  to 
specific  requirements  of  the  Department  of  Education.  Analysis 
indicates  decided  advantages  for  the  sanitary  toilet  through  better 
control  of  the  spread  of  disease,  through  better  teacher  control, 
and  through  the  practical  elimination  of  weather  as  a  factor  in  the 
use  of  the  toilet.  Cleanliness  and  prevention  of  defacement  may 
be  secured  by  either  type,  depending  upon  the  care  and  attention 
given  the  matter.  In  securing  cleanliness  the  sanitary  toilet 
probably  demands  more  care.  It  cannot  be  neglected  without 
serious  consequences.  Because  of  the  chemicals  used  it  is  also 
more  expensive,  though  this  expense  is  small.  If  a  person  were 
employed  to  inspect  and  care  for  a  number  of  the  sanitary  toilets, 
greater  effectiveness  would  undoubtedly  result. 

Such  evidence  as  is  available  seems  to  point  to  the  superiority 
of  the  sanitary  over  the  outdoor  toilet,  but  it  should  be  emphasized 
that  it  is  not  the  use  of  any  particular  kind  that  is  important  but 
the  attainment  of  certain  desirable  ends.  The  state  of  New  York 
has  a  splendid  opportunity  to  test,  through  actual  operation,  the 
two  types.  Progressive  communities  will  be  alert  in  securing  the 
control  of  those  factors  that  will  most  fully  protect  the  health  and 
morals  of  school  children. 

(g)    Pupils'  Desks. — Modern  desks  are  the  exception.     The 

Table  15. — Types  of  Pupils'  Desks 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Type                                    One  Teacher  Two  Teachers 

Movable  chair-desk 0.1%  2.4% 

Single  adjustable 1.6  3.6 

Single  non-adjustable 32.9  44.6 

Double  non-adjustable 56.2  26.5 

Home  made 3  0.0 

Two  kinds 8.7  16.9 

Three  kinds 1  3.6 

No  data 1  2.4 

new  movable  chair-desk  that  permits  informal  grouping  of  pupils, 
and  the  use  of  the  class  room  for  other  than  regular  instructional 

55 


TYPE  OF  DESK 


eg    OB 

Double  non-adjustable    26!  5  C 


Per  cent 

l=teacher  2=teacher 

Ischools   L_J school s 


12  9  — 
Single  non-adjustable  44*5  £ 


Single  adjustable 
Home  made 
Movable  chair-desk 
Two  kinds 
Three  kinds 
No  data 


1.61 
3.6D 

0.3  1 
0.0 

0.11 
2.4  Q 

8.7  H 
16.9  iz: 


0.11 
3.6a 


0.11 

2.4  D 

Diagram  12. — Types  of  pupils'  desks  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 


Table  16 

— Adjustment  of  Seats  and 

Desks 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Percentage 

Seats  Not  Properly 

Desks  Not  Properly 

Distance  Between 

of  All  Seats 

Adjusted 

Adjusted 

Incorrect 

in  School 

One 

Two 

One 

Two 

One 

Two 

Teacher 

Teachers 

Teacher 

Teachers 

Teacher 

Teachers 

0 

32.6% 

48.9% 

32.5% 

47.6% 

27.9% 

40.3% 

1-  9% 

2.7 

3.7 

2.5 

2.4 

1.8 

1.2 

10-19 

9.9 

18.3 

8.4 

17.1 

4.8 

3.7 

20-29 

16.4 

14.6 

17.0 

11.0 

7.0 

7.3 

30-39 

9.0 

1.2 

6.8 

4.9 

2.9 

2.4 

40-49 

5.4 

2.4 

6.0 

2.4 

2.6 

2.4 

50-59 

10.9 

6.1 

10.3 

7.3 

9.3 

17.1 

60-69 

2.5 

1.2 

3.0 

2.4 

2.6 

1.2 

70-79 

1.4 

1.2 

2.2 

1.2 

3.5 

1.2 

80-89 

1.1 

0.0 

1.1 

0.0 

2.3 

2.4 

90-99 

.2 

0.0 

.2 

0.0 

2.8 

1.2 

100 

2.3 

0.0 

3.1 

0.0 

29.1 

15.9 

No  data 

5.6 

2.4 

6.9 

3.7 

3.4 

3.7 

56 


Table  17. — Kind  of  Blackboard 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
Kind  One  Teacher        Two  Teachers 

Slate 34.9%  57.6% 

Composition 11.6  1.4 

Painted  boards 34.0  11.1 

Painted  plaster 1.8  1.4 

All  others 1.0  13.2 

Combinations 

Slate  and  composition 3.0%  2.8% 

Slate  and  boards 6.3  7.6 

Slate  and  plaster 4  0.0 

Composition  and  boards 2.5  1.4 

Composition  and  plaster 3  0.0 

All  other  combinations 4.2  3.5 


KIND  OF  BLACKBOARD 

Slate 

Painted  boards 

Composition 

Painted  plaster 

All  others 

COMBINATIONS 
Slate  and  boards 

Slate  and  composition 

Composition  and  boards 

Slate  and  plaster 

Composition  and  plaster 

All  other  combinations 


PER  CENT  OF  ALL  SCHOOLS  STUDIED 
era  l=teacher      ' — '  2=teacher 


34.91 
57.6  C 


24.0 


11.1' "f 

ll.GMMM 
1.4  0 

1.81 
1.4  0 

1.01 

I.4.HI               1 

6.3 
7.6 


3.0  ■ 
2.8  D 

2.5  ■ 

1.4  0 

0.4  1 

0.0 

0.3  1 
0.0 

4.2  n 

3.5  □ 


2 


Diagram  13. — Kinds  of  blackboard  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 

57 


purposes,  is  almost  unknown.     In  one-teacher  schools  the  old 
double  non-adjustable  desk  is  still  the  most  common  type. 

Table  16  gives  information  regarding  the  lack  of  proper  seating 
arrangements  found  in  each  school  on  the  day  it  was  scored.  This 
table  is  so  arranged  as  to  show  the  percentage  of  schools  having  a 
certain  percentage  of  desks  or  seats  not  properly  adjusted.  Thus 
in  32.6  percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  in  48.9  percent  of  the  two- 
teacher  schools  none  of  the  seats  were  not  properly  adjusted. 

Table  18. — Minimum  Height  of  Blackboard 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
Height                                     One  Teacher        Two  Teachers 
Under  26  inches 6.7%  2.7% 

26  inches 1.7  4.7 

27  "  3.1  6.0 

28  "  3.3  4.0 

29  "  1.0  4.7 

30  "  14.4  13.5 

31  "  3.0  2.7 

32  "  6.4  4.0 

33  "  4.8  3.4 

34  "  4.7  8.1 

35  "  3.1  1.3 

36  "  31.5  28.2 

37  "  2.4  0.0 

38  "  3.1  6.0 

39  "  1.6  1.3 

40  "  3.5  3.4 

41  "  7  0.0 

42  "  3.3  4.7 

43  "  5  0.0 

44  "  1  1.3 

45  "  5 

46  "  2 

48  "  4 

Median  =  35  inches  34  inches 


Several  interesting  summaries  may  be  made  from  this  table,  of 
which  one  is  that  one-half  or  more  of  the  seats  are  not  properly 
adjusted  in  18.4  percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  in  8.5  percent  of 
the  two-teacher  schools;  one-half  or  more  of  the  desks  are  not 
properly  adjusted  in  19.9  percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  in  10.9 
percent  of  the  two- teacher  schools;  and  one-half  or  more  of  the 
seats  and  desks  are  not  correctly  placed  as  to  distance  between 
them  in  49.6  percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  in  39  percent  of  the 
two-teacher  schools. 

58 


Seats  and  desks  of  the  same  size  should  be  placed  together. 
Instead,  we  often  find  that  several  sizes  are  found  in  each  row,  the 
small  desks  being  placed  toward  the  front,  the  large  toward  the 
rear.  This  is  almost  certain  to  mean  maladjustment  for  the  child. 
In  42  percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  in  24.4  percent  of  the  two- 
teacher  schools  the  seats  and  desks  are  not  arranged  according  to 

Inches 
50 


45 
40 
35 
30 
25 
20 
15 
10 
5 


i 

J 

s 

j™r 

r^ 

_H 

J 

A 

0        10      20 
Per  cent 


30       40       50       60       70 


90     100 


Diagram  14. — Height  of  lowest  blackboard  in  one-teacher  schools.    The  dotted 
line  shows  suitable  height  when  there  is  but  one  height  of  blackboard 


size.    A  little  labor  in  rearrangement  would  adjust  most  of  these 
situations. 

(h)  Blackboards. — A  very  important  part  of  the  building 
commonly  neglected  in  the  one-teacher  schools  is  the  blackboard. 
Only  49.5  percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  61.8  percent  of  the  two- 

59 


teacher  schools  have  either  a  composition  or  a  slate  blackboard 
entirely.  Painted  boards  are  all  too  common,  especially  in  the  one- 
teacher  schools.  These  soon  become  a  disgrace:  the  individual 
boards  warp  and  draw  apart,  leaving  gaps,  while  the  paint  soon 
wears  off.  Other  types  of  blackboards  found  include  painted 
plaster,  slated  canvas,  oilcloth,  and  painted  cloth. 

The  height  at  which  blackboards  are  placed  indicates  a  lack  of 
forethought  on  the  part  of  those  who  installed  them.  Table  18 
shows  that  in  the  one-teacher  schools  the  median  height  is  35 
inches  for  the  lowest  blackboard  in  the  school.  In  the  two-teacher 
schools  the  situation  is  about  the  same.  This  is  entirely  too  high 
for  the  smaller  children,  so  that  either  the  board  is  not  so  fully 
utilized  as  it  ought  to  be  by  them  or  it  is  necessary  to  provide  a 
bench  for  them  to  stand  on  while  at  the  board.  The  inconvenience 
and  the  danger  of  the  latter  procedure  are  obvious.  The  number  of 
linear  feet  of  blackboard  given  in  Table  19  is,  for  the  two-teacher 
schools,  the  average  of  that  found  in  the  two  class  rooms. 

Table  19. — Number  of  Linear  Feet  of  Blackboard 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
Number  of  Feet  One  Teacher         Two  Teachers 

2-3.9 0.1%  0.0% 

4-5.9 8  0.0 

6-  7.9 4.0  1.4 

8-9.9 6.6  1.4 

10-11.9 8.9  .7 

12-13.9 11.4  4.1 

14-15.9 12.2  2.7 

16-17.9 8.6  .7 

18-19.9 9.0  9.5 

20-21.9 8.0  8.2 

22-23.9 6.7  6.8 

24-25.9 5.7  8.8 

26-27.9 4.3  2.0 

28-29.9 2.1  5.4 

30  and  over 10.9  48.3 

No  data 7 

Median  = 16.4  feet  29.4  feet 

5.   Are  the  Facilities  Provided  Such  as  Enable  the  School 
to  Perform  in  Full  Its  Function  in  the  Community? 

(a)  Play  Facilities. — Rural  children  have  no  other  opportunity 
to  learn  to  play  equal  to  that  which  they  have  at  school.    For  this 

6o 


Per  cent 
100 


75 


50 


25 


— «j; 

i 

• 

1        1        1        1        1 
—  1=  teacher  schools 
— •  2= teacher  schools 

V 

% 

% 

% 
• 

»_ 
•-.. 

'• 

1 
1 

g 

u 

a) 

%... 

• 
i 

t 

t 
• 

0     20     40     60     80    100  120  140  160  180  200  220  240 
Square  rods 

Diagram  15. — Percentage  of  one-  and  two-teacher  schools  having  a  playground 
area  equal  to  or  greater  than  the  amount  shown 


Table  20. — Size  of  School  Grounds 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
Number  of  Square  Rods  One  Teacher        Two  Teachers 

Under  10  square  rods 4.1  0.0 

10-19 8.4  4.1 

20-29 13.1  4.1 

30-39 11.9  1.4 

40-49 16.6  9.6 

50-59 5.6  2.7 

60-69 6.3  2.7 

70-79 3.5  4.1 

80-89 12.4  11.0 

90-99 1.4  2.7 

100-109 2.6  2.7 

110-119 6  1.4 

120-129 2.6  6.8 

130-139 3  1.4 

140-149 5  0.0 

150-159 3  1.4 

160-169 6.5  27.4 

170-199 3  0.0 

200-229 3  2.7 

230  and  over 2.3  13.8 

No  data 4  0.0 

Median  =     47  square  rods     125  square  rods 

6i 


reason  it  is  important  that  certain  minimum  essentials  be  pro- 
vided. One  requirement  should  be  for  sufficient  space.  The 
standard  for  this  was  set  at  160  square  rods  because  a  careful 
planning  showed  that  approximately  this  amount  of  ground  would 
provide  for  the  location  of  the  schoolhouse,  some  trees  and  shrub- 
bery, a  small  lawn,  and  a  place  for  such  games  as  tennis  or  volley 
ball,  one  old  cat,  pom-pom  pull  away,  and  for  such  play  apparatus 
as  are  suggested  in  the  essential  standards.  It  is  found,  however, 
that  very  few  (9.4  percent)  of  the  one-teacher  schools  meet  the 
standard,  although  almost  half  (43.9  percent)  of  the  two-teacher 

Table  21. — Playground  Apparatus 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
Apparatus  One  Teacher         Two  Teachers 

None 84.0%  67.5% 

Swing 2.1  7.8 

Teeter  board 8  3.8 

Volleyball 1.6  7.8 

Volley  ball  and  net 9  0.0 

Baseball 5.6  9.1 

Bat 1.9  7.8 

Handball 1.3  2.6 

Croquet  set 3  1.3 

Slide 3  1.3 

Basket-ball  only 6  10.4 

Both  basket-ball  and  standards 4  0.0 

Horizontal  bar 2.1  5.2 

Bean  bags 3.5  0.0 

Quoits 2.0  1.3 

Football 1.1  1.3 

Gloves 3  0.0 

Jumping  poles 1  1.3 

Jumping  rope 5  1.3 

All  others 6  9.1 

schools  meet  it.  Since  most  of  the  schoolhouses  were  located  and 
built  when  the  need  for  play  facilities  was  not  recognized,  it  is  easy 
to  understand  the  reason  for  the  situation.  As  it  is,  children  must 
now  generally  use  the  road,  with  the  constant  danger  from  auto- 
mobiles, except  in  the  most  remote  districts,  or  the  neighbor's 
field.    Either  alternative  should,  of  course,  be  avoided. 

The  playground  apparatus,  too,  is  generally  lacking.  Eighty- 
four  percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  67.5  percent  of  the  two- teacher 
schools  have  none.  A  study  of  Table  21  will  show  the  kinds  of 
apparatus  found  and  the  percentage  of  schools  having  each  kind. 

62 


Table  22  shows  how  these  pieces  of  apparatus  are  distributed.  Of 
the  one-teacher  schools,  85  have  one  piece,  54  have  2  pieces,  42  have 
3  pieces,  etc. 

Table  22. — Distribution  of  Play  Apparatus 

One-Teacher  Two-Teacher 

Number  Pieces                           Schools  Schools 

1 85  8 

2 54  7 

3 42  3 

4 10  2 

5 2  2 

6-10 0  1 

(b)  Bulletin  Board. — A  definite  and  convenient  place  for  show- 
ing pictures,  clippings,  etc.,  of  interest  to  the  pupils  or  for  displaying 
meritorious  work  of  the  school  is  becoming  an  almost  indispensable 
part  of  the  class-room  equipment.  Most  one-  and  two-teacher 
schools  have  nothing  of  the  sort  except  where  mouldings  or  win- 

Table  23. — Bulletin  Board  Facilities 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Kind  One  Teacher  Two  Teachers 

Cork  carpet 3.9%  0.0% 

Beaver  board  or  similar  material .  .  .     4.4  2.6 

Wood  covered  with  burlap 8  1.3 

Wood 0.0  3.9 

Burlap  or  similar  material 13.1  31.2 

All  others 2.6  3.9 

No  data 6  1.3 

None 74.8  55.8 

dow-frames  are  utilized.  Cork  carpet,  beaver  board  or  similar  ma- 
terial, and  soft  wood  covered  with  burlap  are  the  most  satisfactory 
materials  for  bulletin  boards. 

(c)  Artificial  Lighting  and  Other  Conveniences. — Arti- 
ficial lights,  too,  are  seldom  provided,  and  where  this  is  done,  the 
facilities  are  often  insufficient.    Eighty-five  and  seven-tenths  per- 

Table  24. — Kind  of  Artificial  Lighting  Provided 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Kind                                            One  Teacher  Two  Teachers 

Electricity 0.5%  20.0% 

Gas 1.2  1.3 

Oil  lamps 12.1  20.0 

None 85.7  58.7 

No  data 5  0.0 

63 


cent  of  the  one-teacher  schools  and  58.7  percent  of  the  two-teacher 
schools  have  no  artificial  lighting,  while  in  those  having  some  pro- 

/Electrlolty  0.555 
Gas  1.2£x    /No  data  0.5# 

Gas  1.3£ 


1= teacher  schools  2=teacher  schools 

Diagram  16. — Kinds  of  artificial  lighting  in  one-  and  two-teacher  schools 

vision  it  is  not  sufficient  in  42.5  percent  of  the  one-teacher  and  in 
22.6  percent  of  the  two-teacher  schools. 

A  telephone,  a  necessity  in  most  modern  farm  homes,  is  unusual 
in  the  school.  While  not  nearly  so  important  as  many  other  things, 
the  telephone  becomes  more  than  a  convenience  in  cases  of  severe 
illness. 

Table  25. — Schools  Having  a  Telephone 


Yes. 

No. 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

One  Teacher  Two  Teachers 

. . . .      0.2%  0.0% 

. ...  99.8  100.0 


A  teacher's  room,  likewise,  is  rare.  Such  a  room,  where  the 
teacher  may  have  privacy  and  an  opportunity  to  relax  once  or 
twice  during  the  day,  would  contribute  to  her  efficiency  and  happi- 
ness.   Modern  schools  are  beginning  to  recognize  this. 


Table  26. 


Yes. 
No. 


-Schools  Having  a  Teacher's  Room 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 
One  Teacher  Two  Teachers 

0.3%  2.7% 

99.7  97.3 


64 


(d)  Special  Rooms. — With  the  broadening  of  the  curriculum  is 
coming  a  demand  for  proper  facilities  for  teaching  these  newer 
subjects.  A  progressive  rural  school  will  have  not  only  one  or  more 
work  rooms  for  teaching  the  elements  of  home  making  and  manual 
training,  but  a  room  where  children  may  play  when  the  weather 
makes  outdoor  recreation  impossible,  and  a  neighborhood  room 
where  the  people  of  the  district  may  come  together  for  social, 
literary,  or  civic  purposes.    Table  27  indicates  that  these  facilities 


Table 

27. — Special  Rooms 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Room 

One  Teacher 

Two  Teachers 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Work  room 

Play  room 

Neighborhood  room 

0.6% 
1.3 

.5 

99.4% 

98.7 

99.5 

8.0% 
20.0 
9.3 

92.0% 

80.0 

90.7 

are  seldom  found  in  New  York  one-teacher  schools.  They  do  exist 
in  a  number  of  two-teacher  schools.  If  class  rooms  were  equipped 
with  the  movable  desk-chair  instead  of  the  ordinary  stationary 
desks,  they  could  be  used  for  either  play  or  neighborhood  activities. 


6.  Does  the  District  Keep  Its  Existing  Facilities  in  Such 
Condition  that  the  Maximum  of  Educational  Efficiency 
May  be  Secured? 

This  question  has  already  been  answered  in  part.  Table  10 
shows  that  unsanitary  methods  of  drinking  and  washing  are  per- 
mitted in  many  schools;  Tables  11  and  12,  that  unhygienic  methods 
of  cleaning  are  still  followed;  Table  16,  that  even  such  desks  as  are 
now  in  the  schools  are  sometimes  not  so  arranged  as  to  reduce  mal- 
adjustment to  the  minimum;  and  Table  18,  that  blackboards  very 
frequently  are  placed  too  high  for  the  smaller  children.  Further 
evidence  is  presented  in  Table  28.  This  table  shows  the  percentage 
5  65 


of  cases  in  which  the  condition  (for  definition  and  method  of  mea- 
surement see  p.  23)  of  certain  items  was  satisfactory  and  unsatis- 
factory. 
All  these  facts  indicate  that  even  such  facilities  as  are  provided 

Table  28. — Condition  of  Certain  Items  in  the  Building 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

0 

ne  Teacher 

Two  Teachers 

s 

U 

No  Data 

S 

U 

No  Data 

Shades 

41.6% 

54.5 

57.3 

63.4 

66.6 

64.1 

81.3 

63.6 

48.8 

57.0% 

41.9 

41.9 

36.0 

32.7 

34.0 

17.9 

34.8 

44.6 

1.4% 
3.6 

.8 

.6 

.7 
1.9 

.8 
1.6 
6.6 

47.3% 

66.3 

79.3 

84.4 

79.2 

91.8 

93.2 

63.6 

53.8 

52.7% 

27.5 

20.7 

15.6 

19.5 

6.8 

5.5 
30.9 
15.4 

0.0% 

Desks 

6.2 

Blackboards 

Floor 

0.0 
0.0 

Walls 

1.3 

Foundation 

Roof 

1.4 
1.3 

5.5 

Plav  apparatus 

30.8 

Per  cent 
Satisfactory    ■■Unsatisfactory     EZZ2No  data 
2=teacher  schools 


1= teacher 

schools 

Roof 

81 

■Tl8l 

Walls 

66 

■     H 

Foundation 

64 

MMM 

Floor 

63 

Fencing 

63 

ffl  ■  1&A 

Blackboards 

57 

|~42~HH 

De3ks 

54 

iT;TH 

Play 
apparatus 

49 

,44W 

Shades 

42 

BIT 

m                 93 

PT':1 

79 

m              92 

pi 

84 

mEH 

%           64 

m.j  a 

79 

IH23I 

\              66 

E3^ 

31 

m    54 

53 

47 

Diagram  17. — Condition  of  certain  items  in  one-  and  two-teacher  buildings 

66 


are  not  kept  in  such  condition  as  to  contribute  fully  to  accomplish- 
ing the  purpose  of  those  facilities  in  the  school.  Such  facts  are  a 
serious  indictment  of  district  control  as  it  is  now  exercised  in 
typical  sections  of  the  state.  Whether  this  control  should  be  taken 
away  from  the  community  or  whether  it  would  be  possible,  through 
leadership,  to  stimulate  the  community  to  manage,  without  detri- 
ment to  the  schools,  such  objective  affairs  as  these  is  a  problem  of 
fundamental  importance.  The  question  is  considered  in  detail 
in  a  later  section  (II  B). 

7.  In  What  Respects  Are  the  Buildings  Strong  and  in  What 

Are  They  Weak? 

In  Table  29  is  presented  a  distribution,  by  percentages,  of  the 
essential  standard  credit  assigned  the  various  items  of  the  building. 
Thus,  on  the  factor  of  size  of  class  room,  there  are  none  in  the  one- 
teacher  schools  that  receive  as  low  as  20  percent  of  the  full  value 
allowed;  2  percent  receive  from  21-40  percent  of  full  value;  4 
percent,  41-60  percent;  17  percent,  61-80  percent;  77  percent, 
81-100  percent. 

Only  one-third  of  the  total  number  of  one-teacher  schools  studied 
is  here  represented,  every  third  score  card  in  the  list  being  chosen 
for  analysis.  Since  the  schools  had  been  kept  together  by  super- 
visory districts,  a  thoroughly  representative  selection  was  assured. 
All  of  the  two-teacher  buildings  were  included. 

8.  On  What  Points  do  the  Buildings  Receive  Additional 

Credit? 

Table  30  is  based  upon  the  same  schools  studied  in  Table  29,  but 
here  the  credits  are  indicated  in  terms  of  actual  values.  The  largest 
amounts  of  additional  credit  go,  in  the  one-teacher  schools,  for  size 
of  class  room,  floor,  and  flag  and  pole.  Where  a  blank  is  found  in 
the  "none"  column  this  means  that  the  standards  required  for 
essential  credit  are  such  as  to  make  it  unlikely  that  further  improve- 
ment will  be  found  in  schools  of  this  size.  In  the  two-teacher 
schools  the  largest  additional  credits  go  to  size  of  class  room,  floor, 
clock,  flag  and  pole,  and  architectural  appearance.  A  careful 
study  of  the  table  will  show  to  what  extent  each  item  has  a  tendency 

67 


to  meet  more  than  the  essential  standards  and  how  these  tendencies 
compare  in  the  two  types  of  schools. 


Table  29. — Percentage  Distribution  of  Essential  Standard  Credit 


One  Teacher- 

—Percent 

Two  Teachers— 

-Percent 

0-20 

21-40 

41-60 

61-80 

81-100 

0-20 

21-40 

41-60 

61-80 

81-100 

I.  The  class  room 

2 

73 
58 
62 
34 
51 
18 

8 
37 

2 
36 
20 
25 

7 
11 

3 
17 

18 
56 
13 

7 

3 

3 

3 
10 

2 
11 

3 
26 

29 
2 

10 
5 
5 

i 

5 
3 

4 

41 

13 

8 

2 

2 

3 

22 

3 

10 

7 

30 

33 

3 

35 
11 

26 

54 
14 
44 
3 
24 

1 

23 

23 

11 
6 
9 
15 
12 
14 

25 

13 

12 

24 

7 

1 

1 

8 

7 

17 
12 
5 
8 
10 
14 
23 
28 
27 
18 

15 

28 

4 

19 
11 

2 
20 

15 
12 
28 

29 

io 

23 

26 
31 
12 
37 
13 
14 

12 

5 

18 

31 

2 

18 
13 

77 
47 

8 
23 

5 
46 
22 
32 
62 
28 

8 
17 
17 
10 
37 

32 

20 

7 

34 

13 

15 

14 

4 

38 

85 

8 

6 

60 

36 

59 
51 
77 
35 
70 
44 

11 

78 
56 
38 
35 
3 

67 
77 

1 
8 
3 

61 

i 

30 

32 

9 
60 

3 

i 

68 

1 

1 

87 

97 

1 

1 

40 
41 

77 
1 

i 

24 
29 
57 
13 
32 
14 

4 
15 

1 
13 
11 
16 

1 

7 

21 

4 

5 

8 

29 

6 

5 

1 

1 
1 

7 

12 

17 

3 
3 
5 
1 
14 
3 
3 

1 
28 
24 

4 

12 
1 
9 

12 
24 
16 

2 

15 

7 

12 

18 
9 

20 
8 

7 

9 

4 

1 
3 
3 
4 
9 
20 

19 
4 
13 
19 
4 
1 
7 
8 
5 

5 
19 
13 
12 
19 
8 
21 
27 
15 
3 
2 
20 
36 
15 

10 

22 

8 

20 

17 
11 
29 

1 
24 

'5 

12 

12 

12 

6 

9 

8 

20 

17 

5 

17 

37 

4 

3 

1 

27 

15 

94 

52 

3.  Window  placement. . .  . 

1 
3 
2! 
4 
1 

7 

83 

2 

2 

58 

63 

7 
47 
88 

3 

3 

1 
93 

2 

15 
91 
94 

4 

15 

1 

2 

39 

54 

16 

6.  Floor 

76 

7.  Walls 

47 

8.  Color  scheme 

9.  Inside  finish 

10.  Blackboard 

47 
80 
73 

11.  Bulletin  board 

12.  Desks 

13.  Seating  arrangement. . . 

14.  Closet 

24 
43 
36 
39 

15.  Clock 

55 

II.  Other  rooms  or  room  fa- 
cilities 
16.  Fuel  room 

68 
41 

28 

20.  Library 

60 

III.  General    service    equip- 
ment 
24.  Heating  and  ventilation 

26.  Cleaning  system 

27.  Water  supply 

28.  Artificial  lighting 

29.  Toilets 

57 
51 
44 
23 
63 

31.   Bel! 

99 

32.  First  aid 

13 

3 

34.  Flag  and  pole 

IV.  The  building  in  general 

35.  Vestibule 

86 
82 

36.  Material   of  construc- 

86 

84 

38.  Roof 

91 

39.  Condition  of  repair .  .  .  . 

40.  Location  on  grounds  .  . 

2 
2 
2 

23 

2 

5 

2 

51 

96 

98 

2 

80 

83 
48 

V.  The  grounds 

46 

91 

45.  Slope  and  drainage .  .  .  . 

67 
41 

47 

48.  Walks 

54 

49.   Playground  apparatus. 

1 
61 

51.  Accessibility 

77 

68 


I  THE  CLASS  ROOM 

1  Size 

9  Inside  finish 

2  Shape 
6  Floor 

8  Color  schema 

13  Seating  arrangement 

10  Blackboards 
12  Desks 

?  Walls 

4  Glass  area 

3  Window  placement 

5  Shades 

14  Closets 

15  Clock 

11  Bulletin  board 

II  OTHER  ROOMS,  FACILITIES 
20  Library 

16  Fuel  room 

17  Cloak  room 
19  Store  room 

III  GENERAL  SERVICE 
EQUIPMENT 

31  Bell 

34  Flag  and  pole 
29  Toilets 

27  Water  supply 

24  Heating  <&  ventilation 
26  Cleaning  system 

28  Artificial  lighting 

32  First  aid 

33  Mall  box 

IV  THE  BUILDING  IN  GENERAL 

38  Roof 

40  Location  on  grounds 
37  Foundation 

36  Material  of  construct 

39  Condition  of  repair 

41  Orientation 

35  Vestibule 

V  THE  GROUNDS 

44  Shape 

51  Accessibility 
50  Environment 

45  Slope  and  drainage 

46  Condition 
43  Size 

47  Fencing 

48  Walks 

49  Playground  apparatus 


1= teacher  I 

Per  cent 

20  40 


2=teacher 


Diagram  18. — Median  score  of  one-  and  two-teacher  buildings  on  each  of  the 
items  required  for  essential  standard  credit.  The  median  is  interpreted  in 
terms  of  the  percentage  of  a  perfect  essential  standard  score  that  is  attained 

69 


Table  30. — Distribution  of  Additional  Credit  Among  the  Various  Items 


One  Teacher 


Two  Teachers 


11-15 


16-20 


I.  The  class  room 

1.  Size 

2.  Shape 

3.  Window  placement.  . 

4.  Glass  area 

5.  Shades 

6.  Floor 

7.  Walls 

8.  Color  scheme 

9.  Inside  finish 

10.  Blackboard 

11.  Bulletin  board 

12.  Desks 

13.  Seating    arrange- 

ment    

14.  Closet 

15.  Clock 

II.  Other  rooms 

16.  Fuel  room 

17.  Cloak  room 

18.  Work  room 

19.  Store  room 

20.  Library  

21.  Teachers'  room 

22.  Play  room 

23.  Neighborhood  room . 

III.  General  service  equip- 

ment 

24.  Heat  and  ventilation 

25.  Fire  extinguisher. .. . 

26.  Cleaning  system .... 

27.  Water  supply 

28.  Artificial  lighting  .  .  . 

29.  Toilets 

30.  Telephone 

31.  Bell 

32.  First  aid 

33.  Mail  box 

34.  Flag  and  pole 

IV.  The  building  in  general 

35.  Vestibule 

36.  Material  of  construe 

tion 

37.  Foundation 

38.  Roof 

39.  Condition 

40.  Location  on  grounds 

41.  Orientation 

42.  Architectural    ap- 

pearance   

V.  The  grounds 

43.  Size 

44.  Shape 

45.  Slope  and  drainage.  . 

46.  Condition 

47.  Fencing 

48.  Walks 

49.  Playground     appar- 

atus   

50.  Environment 

51.  Accessibility 

Other  items 


40 


70 


9.  Does  the  Community  Protect  Its  Property  Adequately? 
The  state  law  gives  authority  to  the  trustee  or  the  Board  of 
Education  to  insure  the  schoolhouse  and  its  equipment.  In  general 
this  is  done,  as  data  given  in  Table  31  indicate.  This  table  is 
based  upon  the  schools  of  12  supervisory  districts  for  which  com- 
plete data  regarding  insurance  were  available.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  there  are  7  percent  of  the  483  buildings  that  are  not  insured — 
a  risk  that  no  community  ought  to  assume.  While  it  is  true  that 
schoolhouses  do  not  burn  frequently,  this  does  happen  often  enough 
to  serve  as  a  warning.  Thus  in  26  supervisory  districts  from  which 
information  was  secured  17  had  had  no  losses  by  burning  in  five 
years,  but  in  the  9  other  supervisory  districts  11  buildings  had 
burned  during  that  time.  In  at  least  one  of  these  11  cases  there 
was  no  insurance.  It  would  appear,  too,  from  the  facts  given  in 
Table  31,  that,  even  though  the  buildings  are  sadly  deficient  in 
most  cases  for  educational  purposes,  they  are  sometimes  insured 
for  less  than  their  actual  sale  value.  District  superintendents 
frequently  express  an  opinion  that  this  is  the  case.  Differences 
in  value  for  buildings  of  the  same  quality  appear  in  Table  31  that 
cannot  be  explained  entirely  by  the  location  of  schoolhouses  as 
near  to  or  far  from  places  that  make  the  property  more  salable. 
Apparently  an  important  factor  is  whether  or  not  the  trustee  secures 
the  total  insurance  that  will  be  allowed  by  the  insuring  company. 

B.    BUILDINGS  WITH  THREE  OR  MORE  TEACHERS 

1.    How  the  Facts  Were  Collected 
Here  again  the  score  card  method  was  used,  the  Strayer-Engle- 
hardt  score  card  for  city  school  buildings  being  employed.    Since 
this  score  card  and  its  standards  are  now  widely  known,  they  are 
not  reproduced  here. 

The  greater  complexity  of  this  score  card  did  not  make  it  feasible 
to  train  a  large  number  of  district  superintendents.  Accordingly 
four  experienced  men — Dr.  R.  M.  Stewart,  Cornell  University; 
Supt.  M.  G.  Nelson,  Delaware  Co.;  Supt.  L.  J.  Cook,  Ontario  Co.; 
Supt.  F.  A.  Beardsley,  Tompkins  Co. — were  secured.  Two  days 
were  spent  in  preparation  for  the  work.    Two  buildings  of  quite 

7i 


I^iox 

■  t 

e*5  •*  *•> 

1    t^    CN    O    »-l 

.     t^     CO      «-H 

1                Tf 

ooo'e$  j3ao 

(N    C    "3    H 

■* 

ooo'e$ 

rH    -* 

lO 

666'£-O06'Z$ 

668' £-008' Z$ 

66£'£-ooz'z$ 

669t-009'2$ 

:  -< 

1     -1 

66S'e-00£'Z$ 

«H         •    CN 

CO 

66fr'Z-O0t-'Z$ 

:  -1 

- 

66e'z-ooe'z$ 

66Z'Z-00Z'Z$ 

;  -< 

-1 

66l'Z-O0l'Z$ 

660'Z-000'Z$ 

rt     rt     N     ^1     !») 

o 

666'T-006'I$ 

~    : 

*-■ 

668'I-008'I$ 

CN 

CN 

66£'l-O0£'l$ 

•    CN 

CN 

669'  I  -009'  1$ 

«      IN      H      H 

lO 

665'T-OOS'IS 

00    O    N    H 

CN 

66^'l-00t'TS 

■>*    CN 

SO 

66?'i-ooe'i$ 

66Z'l~O0Z'l$ 

rt     •*     O     N     rt 

1            CN 

66T'T-00I'I$ 

:**:':: 

1            ""* 

660'I-000'T$ 

■    rt    O    00    N    N    N 
h    N    H 

1       o 

1              NO 

666-006$ 

■  <o   r—    '-i 

^ 

668-008$ 

rt    »    O   ifl 
^h    CN 

1     3 

66i-00Z$ 

CN    »-i    CO    lO    CN 

CO 

<o 

669-009$ 

•    «5    lO    >0    N    N    « 
cn    (vi 

95 

66£-O0S$ 

•    I/)    <t    0>    N 

!N      (N      rH 

o 

66fKX)t$ 

•    Tf    IT)     On    CN 
CN 

© 

66e-ooe$ 

•    ^h    CN    ON    *-!    »-< 

-    : 

"-) 

663-003$ 

CO    CN    CN 

f^ 

661-001$ 

001$  Japufl 

33UBjnSUJ  o^[ 

•    ^    Q\    ^f    f^ 

CO 

Total 
Score 

Q 

O 

k.     ON 

n 

On    9 
On    On 

CN    CO 

9 

9 
1 

9 
9 
l/J 

I 

9 

3 

9 
l 

5 

9 
9 

i 

s 

00 

9 
9 

9. 

6 

5 
O 

+ 

5 

o 

H 

72 


different  types  were  scored,  through  which  experience  uniform 
methods  of  recording  data  were  developed,  possible  misinterpre- 
tations of  standards  were  cleared  up,  and  values  to  be  assigned  for 
situations  not  specifically  stated  in  the  standards,  yet  commonly 
found  in  New  York,  were  agreed  upon. 

2.  The  Scores 
Table  32  gives  a  distribution  of  the  scores  assigned.  In  order  to 
facilitate  analysis  and  comparison  the  schools  are  divided  into 
three  classes:  those  of  three  and  four  teachers;  of  five  to  nine 
teachers;  of  10  teachers  and  over.  The  results  will  be  stated  in 
percentages  so  that  the  reader  should  keep  in  mind  the  total  num- 
ber of  schools  involved:  31  of  the  3-4  teacher  group;  70  of  the  5-9 
group;  45  of  the  10  -f-  group.  While  this  division  is  more  or  less 
arbitrary,  it  does  recognize  types  sufficiently  different  to  justify 
the  use  of  somewhat  different  standards.  Accordingly  the  scores 
here  presented  have  been  adjusted  (Table  33)  so  as  to  make  a 

Table  32. — Original  Score  for  Schools  of  Three  or  More  Teachers 


Score 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

0-49 

6^5% 

6.5 
16.1 
16.1 
16.1 

6.5 

6.5 
22.5 

3.2 

Q1=            387 
Median  =  465 
Q3  =           603 

1-4% 

4.3 

5.8 
10.0 
18.6 

8.6 
15.7 
20.0 

4.3 

4.3 

5.7 

1.4 

459 
554 
626 

50-99 

100-149 

150-199 

200-249 

250-299 

300-349 

350-399 

400-449 

2.2% 

450-499 

2.2 

500-549 

8.9 

550-599 

17.8 

600-649 

15.6 

650-699 

11.1 

700-749 

11.1 

750-799 

11.1 

800-849 

11.1 

850-899 

8.9 

900-949 

950-999 

1,000 

583 
665 

777 

73 


comparison  of  the  groups  more  fair.  This  adjustment  has  been  of 
two  kinds:  (1)  Certain  allowances  were  made  individual  schools 
because  of  function  or  type  of  construction.1     (2)  Other  allow- 


Table  33. — Adjusted  Score 

for  Buildings 

df  Three  and  More  Teachers 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Score 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

0-49 

6^5% 

3.2 

9.7 
16.1 
16.1 
12.9 

3.2 

6.5 
19.4 

3.2 

3.2 

Q,=    "      467 
Median  =  545 
Q3  =            702 

1-4% 

4.3 

4.3 
11.4 
12.9 
10.0 
10.0 
18.6 
11.4 

5.7 

4.3 

4.3 

1.4 

514 
628 
709 

50-99 

100-149 

150-199 

200-249 

250-299 

300-349 

350-399 

400-449 

2.2% 
2.2 

450-499 

500-549 

8.9 

550-599 

17.8 

600-649 

15.6 

650-699 

11.1 

700-749 

11.1 

750-799 

11.1 

800-849 

850-899 

11.1 

8.9 

900-949 

950-999 

1,000  + 

584 

66; 

77* 

[ 
I 

1  The  following  allowances  were  made  in  the  case  of  individual  schools: 

(1)  Three  and  four  teachers 

(a)  Stairways  and  corridors  in  buildings  of  one  story. 

(b)  Fireproofness  in  buildings  of  one  story. 

(c)  Laboratories  in  buildings  housing  grades  not  higher  than  the  eighth. 

(2)  Five  to  nine  teachers 

(a)  Fire  escapes  in  building  under  three  stories. 

(b)  Exit  lights  where  there  are  no  fire  escapes. 

(c)  Study  halls  in  buildings  housing  grades  not  above  the  sixth. 

(d)  Laboratories  where  there  are  no  grades  above  the  eighth. 
For  buildings  of  ten  teachers  or  over  no  adjustments  are  made. 

In  a  few  cases,  e.  g.,  heating  system  and  toilets,  some  internal  changes  in  the 
standards'* — not  merely  eliminations  of  items — might  be  attempted,  but  the 
task  of  making  such  adjustment  was  so  complex  because  of  lack  of  generally 
accepted  standards  for  different  types  of  buildings  that  it  was  decided  to  leave 
the  standards  as  stated  by  the  authors.  The  advantage  of  this  is,  of  course, 
that  we  have  a  common  basis  for  interpreting  situations. 

74 


ances  were  made  the  schools  as  a  group,  on  the  grounds  that  such 
requirements  would  be  quite  unusual.1 

The  reasons  for  such  modifications  will  be  apparent  without 
further  explanation  than  the  information  given  in  the  footnotes. 
Present  knowledge  does  not  enable  us  to  state  such  differences  on  a 
scientifically  exact  basis,  but  the  writer  is  convinced  that  the  dis- 
tinctions here  made  are  in  general  valid.  With  the  modifications 
thus  definitely  stated,  the  reader  familiar  with  the  Strayer-Engle- 
hardt  score  card  is  enabled  to  make  such  further  changes  as  he  may 
think  desirable. 

A  word  should  be  said  regarding  the  method  of  making  these 
adjustments.  An  illustration  will  be  clearest.  One  school  received 
362  points  on  the  basis  of  the  standards  as  they  are.  Items  with  a 
credit  of  70  points  were  not  required  on  basis  1  (p.  74) ;  on  basis  2 
140  points  were  allowed,  since  this  is  a  four-teacher  school.  To- 
gether there  are  210  of  the  1,000  points  not  required  of  this  build- 
ing. Clearly  these  210  points  cannot  be  added  to  the  original  score 
of  362,  since  to  do  so  would  be  to  assume  that  if  these  items  were 
present  they  would  be  present  in  complete  compliance  with  the 
standards — an  assumption  quite  unjustified.  What  should  be 
done  is  to  interpret  the  original  362  points  in  terms  of  the  number 
of  points  now  required  for  a  perfect  score  in  this  building,  that  is, 

1  The  group  allowances  made  were: 

Three  to  Four    Five  to  Nine 

Teachers  Teachers 

Score  Score 

Fans  and  motors 10  10 

Special  provisions 5  5 

Escapes 20  0 

Fire  doors  and  partitions 10  10 

Exit  lights 5  0 

Mechanical  service  system 10  10 

Auditorium 15  15 

Study  hall 5  0 

Gymnasium 10  10 

Swimming  pool 5  5 

Lunch  room 10  0 

Officer's  room 10  0 

Music  room 10  10 

Janitor's  room 5  5 

Lecture  room 10  10 

Studios 5  5 

140  95 

75 


1,000-210  or  790.  This  building  is  then  entitled  to  362  out  of  790 
points,  which  reduced  to  a  1,000-point  basis  (ff |  of  1,000)  gives  458, 
the  adjusted  score. 

These  scores  would  best  be  interpreted  on  the  basis  suggested  by 
the  authors  of  the  score  card:1 

"Experience  resulting  from  the  application  of  the  score  card  to 
hundreds  of  school  buildings  in  various  sections  of  the  United 
States  suggests  that  a  score  of  900  to  1,000  points  indicates  a 

Per  cent 

of 

schools 


100 


1000 


Diagram  19. — Percentage  of  schools  with  three  or  more  teachers  having  adjusted 
scores  equal  to  or  greater  than  those  shown 


highly  satisfactory  degree  of  construction  and  equipment.  In  fact, 
in  only  a  few  minor  respects  does  such  a  building  deviate  from 
acceptable  standards. 

"A  rating  between  700  and  900  points  is  fairly  satisfactory. 
Such  a  rating  should  be  studied  in  the  light  of  its  component  parts. 
Slight  building  alterations,  the  need  for  which  will  be  indicated  by 
the  low  score  allowed  on  such  items,  will  tend  to  raise  considerably 

1  General  Report  on  School  Buildings  and  Grounds  of  Delaware.  Bulletin 
of  the  Service  Citizens  of  Delaware,  Vol.  1,  No.  3,  pp.  195,  196. 

76 


the  score  of  a  building  in  this  group.  A  score  of  500  to  700  points 
has  meant  that  considerable  alteration  was  needed  before  these 
buildings  could  be  brought  to  a  satisfactory  standard  of  efficiency. 

"When  scores  of  buildings  have  fallen  below  500  points,  it  has 
been  the  universal  judgment  of  those  who  have  built  the  score  card 
that  speedy  abandonment  of  those  buildings  for  school  purposes 
was  the  only  justifiable  course  to  be  followed.  In  all  instances 
where  scores  of  500  points  or  less  have  resulted  it  has  seemed  that 
expenditures  for  repairs  and  reconstruction  would  be  highly  ex- 
cessive. It  has  also  seemed  that  there  was  little  possibility,  even 
with  the  expenditure  of  relatively  large  sums  of  money,  to  secure 
as  a  result  of  such  repairs  and  reconstruction  a  building  which  was 
suitable  for  school  purposes." 

If  Table  33  is  interpreted  on  the  basis  suggested  by  the  authors, 
1.4  percent  only  of  the  5-9  teacher  group  fall  into  the  highly 
satisfactory  class,  while  25.8  percent  of  the  3-4  teacher  group, 
25.7  percent  of  the  5-9  group,  and  42.2  percent  of  the  10  -f-  group 
are  fairly  satisfactory.  The  percentage  of  unsatisfactory  buildings 
is  thus  seen  to  be  high  in  all  three  groups.  Whether  or  not  the 
reader  accepts  the  basis  of  interpretation  given,  the  facts  do  make 
clear  that  the  great  majority  of  communities  need  to  analyze 
existing  building  facilities  to  see  where  improvements  need  to  be 
made  and  to  devise  ways  and  means  of  making  these  improvements 
most  economically. 

It  is  doubtless  unnecessary  to  warn  the  reader  that  a  comparison 
of  one-  and  two-teacher  buildings  with  these  larger  ones  on  the 
basis  of  scores  is  not  feasible  because  of  differences  in  standards 
employed  in  the  two  score  cards. 

3.    Some  General  Information 
Table  34  gives  the  facts  regarding  the  material  of  which  these 
buildings  are  constructed.    The  majority  of  the  3-4  teacher  and  the 
5-9  teacher  schools  are  frame.    Only  in  the  10  +  teacher  group  do 
we  find  something  more  substantial  predominating. 

In  Tables  35  and  36  are  presented  data  regarding  the  type  of 
building:  one  showing  the  number  of  stories,  the  other  the  shape. 
As  these  facts  indicate,  there  has  been  a  tendency  to  build  the 

77 


rectangular  and  square  shape,  and  in  some  cases  to  build  more 
stories  than  is  now  customary  in  buildings  of  that  size. 


Table  34.- 

—Material  of 

Construction 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

Frame 

63.3% 
30.0 
6.7 

60.9% 
31.9 

7.2 

6.6% 

Brick 

91.2 

Concrete  and  stone 

2.2 

Table  35. — Number  of  Stories 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

One  story 

35.5% 
64.5 
0.0 

5.7% 
88.6 
5.7 

0.0% 

Two  stories 

88.9 

Three  stories 

11.1 

Table  36. — Shape  of  Buildings 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

Square 

16.1% 
51.6 

6.5 
22.5 

3.3 

0.0 

0.0 

7-1% 
58.6 
17.1 
10.0 

4.3 

0.0 

2.9 

2.2% 

Rectangular 

51.1 

L 

13.3 

T 

11.1 

H 

8.9 

U 

No  data 

2.2 
0.0 

78 


The  distribution  of  these  buildings  as  to  function  is  also  interest- 
ing. In  the  table  below  the  facts  are  so  arranged  as  to  indicate  the 
percentage  of  schools  that  house  all  grades  up  to  and  including  the 
one  where  the  percentage  is  given.  Thus  3.2  percent  of  the  3-4 
teacher  group  (in  this  case  only  one  school)  include  only  the  first 

Table  37.— Distribution  as  to  Function  of  Building 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Grades 
Housed 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten-f 
Teachers 

1    

0.0 

3.2 

0.0 

3.2 

0.0 

3.2 

0.0 

29.1 

12.9 

38.7 

0.0 

9.7 

0.0% 

0.0 

0.0 

2.8 

0.0 

1.4 

1.4 
10.1 

0.0 

4.3 

0.0 
75.8 

0.0 

0.0 

1.4 

1.4 

0.0 

0.0 

1.4 

o.o% 

2 

0.0 

3 

0.0 

4 

0.0 

5 

0.0 

6 

6.7 

7 

0.0 

8 

4.5 

9 

0.0 

10 

2.2 

11    

0.0 

12 

73.3 

4-year  high  school 

2.2 

3-12 

2.2 

6-12 

0.0 

7-12 

4.5 

8-12 

2.2 

9-12 

2.2 

Primary  and  vocational 

0.0 

two  grades;  73.3  percent  of  the  10  +  teacher  group  have  all  twelve 
grades.  Other  combinations  of  grades  are  presented  in  the  latter 
part  of  the  table.  The  general  practice  is  for  a  building  to  house  all 
twelve  grades  in  both  groups  of  larger  schools.  In  the  3-4  teacher 
buildings  eight  and  ten  grades  are  the  most  frequently  found. 


4.    To  What  Extent  Are  Modern  Facilities  Provided? 

In  this  section  there  will  be  presented  an  analysis  of  situations 
that  are  particularly  fundamental,  no  attempt  being  made  to  cover 
all  those  that  are  important. 

79 


(a)  Floor  and  Air  Space. — The  New  York  statutes  require 
that  new  and  remodeled  buildings  have  15  square  feet  of  floor  space 
and  200  cubic  feet  of  air  space  per  pupil.    Tables  38  and  39  show 

Table  38. — Distribution  of  Schools,  Showing  Percentage  of  Class, 
Recitation,  and  Study  Rooms  in  Which  the  Standard  of  15  Square 
Feet  of  Floor  Space  per  Pupil  is  Met 


Percent  of  Rooms 

Percentage  of  All  Such  Rooms  Studied 

Meeting  Standards 

Three  to  Four 

Five  to  Nine 

Ten  + 

Teachers 

Teachers 

Teachers 

100 

66.6% 

54.4% 

33.3% 

90-99 

0.0 

0.0 

6.7 

80-89 

0.0 

17.1 

0.0 

70-79 

10.0 

10.0 

24.4 

60-69 

6.7 

7.1 

6.7 

50-59 

6.7 

2.8 

13.3 

40-49 

0.0 

4.3 

6.7 

30-39 

0.0 

4.3 

4.4 

20-29 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

10-19 

6.7 

0.0 

0.0 

1.0-9.9 

0.0 

0.0 

2.2 

0 

3.3 

0.0 

2.2 

Table  39. — Distribution  of  Schools,  Showing  Percentage  of  Class, 
Recitation,  and  Study  Rooms  in  Which  the  Standard  of  200  Cubic 
Feet  of  Air  Space  per  Pupil  is  Met 


Percent  of  Rooms 

Percentage  of  All  Such  Rooms  Studied 

Meeting  Standards 

Three  to  Four 

Five  to  Nine 

Ten  + 

Teachers 

Teachers 

Teachers 

100 

40.0% 

20.0% 

35.6% 

90-99 

0.0 

2.9 

0.0 

80-89 

0.0 

21.4 

13.3 

70-79 

10.0 

7.1 

8.9 

60-69 

6.7 

10.0 

13.3 

50-59 

20.0 

15.7 

15.6 

40-49 

0.0 

2.9 

2.2 

30-39 

10.0 

8.6 

2.2 

20-29 

0.0 

7.2 

0.0 

10-19 

0.0 

1.4 

2.2 

1.0-9.9 

0.0 

1.4 

0.0 

0 

13.3 

1.4 

6.7 

8o 


to  what  extent  the  buildings  studied  meet  these  standards  in  class, 
recitation,  and  study  rooms. 

(6)  Natural  Lighting. — While  the  situation  in  these  schools  is 
better  than  in  those  having  one  and  two  teachers  regarding  the 
ratio  of  glass  area  to  floor  space,  it  is  still  inadequate  in  many 
schools.    In  Table  40  are  given  the  facts  regarding  this  matter, 


Table  40. — Ratio  of  Glass  Area  to  Floor  Area  in  Class,  Recitation, 
and  Study  Rooms 


Ratio 

Three  to  Four 

Five  to  Nine 

Ten  + 

Teachers 

Teachers 

Teachers 

1:  2 

1.0% 

o.o% 

0.0% 

1 

3 

6.1 

2.9 

3.2 

1 

4 

11.3 

12.6 

16.2 

1 

5 

18.5 

26.2 

28.0 

1 

6 

31.7 

22.7 

19.1 

1 

7 

8.2 

10.1 

16.1 

1 

8 

10.0 

11.8 

10.5 

1 

9 

7.1 

5.3 

5.5 

1 

10 

4.1 

4.6 

.6 

1: 

11 

0.0 

1.6 

.2 

1. 

12 

0.0 

.7 

.2 

1 

13 

2.0 

.3 

.2 

1 

14 

0.0 

.3 

.2 

1 

15 

0.0 

.0 

.0 

1 

16 

0.0 

.0 

.0 

1 

17 

0.0 

.3 

.0 

1 

18 

0.0 

.3 

.0 

1 

19 

0.0 

.3 

.0 

Med 

tan  in 

1 : 6  group 

1 : 6  group 

1 : 5  group 

10* i teacher 

schools 


Par  cent 
Above  standard         Below  standard 


53.6 


5-9=teacher 
schools 


58.3 


3-4  =  teacher 
schools 


63.1 


Diagram  20. — Percentage  of  schools  with  three  or  more  teachers  having  a  ratio 
of  glass  area  to  floor  space  equal  to  or  above  the  standard  of  1 :5 

6  81 


tabulated  on  the  basis  of  number  of  class,  recitation,  and  study 
rooms.  Other  rooms  are  not  included  because  the  need  for  the 
amount  of  light  specified  in  the  standard  is  not  so  great  in  rooms 
that  are  not  used  continuously  for  study.  Even  in  the  10  + 
teacher  group  the  median  falls  about  where  the  minimum  should 
be,  while  in  the  other  groups  the  situation  is  worse. 

Table  41  gives  somewhat  similar  data,  but,  instead  of  indicating 
the  number  of  rooms  that  have  a  given  ratio,  it  shows  how  large  a 


Table  41. — Distribution  of  Schools,  Showing  Percentage  of  Class, 
Recitation,  and  Study  Rooms  in  Which  the  Ratio  of  Glass  to  Floor 
Area  Is  Below  1:5 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Percentage  of  Rooms  Having 

Ratio  of  Glass  to  Floor  Area 

Below  1:5 

Three  to  Four 

Five  to  Nine 

Ten  + 

Teachers 

Teachers 

Teachers 

0% 

25.8% 

15.5% 

15.6% 

1-  9 

00.0 

00.0 

00.0 

10-19 

00.0 

5.6 

8.9 

20-29 

3.2 

8.5 

2.2 

30-39 

3.2 

1.4 

8.9 

40-49 

00.0 

4.2 

4.4 

50-59 

3.2 

8.5 

11. 1 

60-69 

9.7 

7.0 

11.1 

70-79 

0.0 

5.6 

6.7 

80-89 

0.0 

11.3 

15.6 

90-99 

0.0 

0.0 

2.2 

100 

54.9 

32.4 

13.3 

percentage  of  rooms  in  each  school  fails  to  meet  the  standard.  Thus, 
of  the  3-4  teacher  group,  25.8  percent  of  the  schools  meet  the 
standard  in  all  rooms,  while  in  54.9  percent  of  the  schools  it  is  not 
met  in  any  of  the  rooms.  In  the  3-4  teacher  schools  67.8  percent 
of  the  schools  have  one-half  or  more  of  their  rooms  that  fail  to  meet 
the  standard;  in  the  5-9  group  the  percentage  is  64.8;  in  the  10 -f 
group  it  is  59.9. 

The  top-roller  shade  is  still  the  prevailing  type  in  these  schools, 
though  there  is  a  larger  percentage  of  rooms  having  such  modern 

82 


types  as  the  movable  and  double  roller  than  is  the  case  in  the  one- 
and  two-teacher  schools. 


Table  42. — Percentage  of  Class,  Recitation,  and  Study  Rooms  Having 
Different  Types  of  Shades 


Percentage  of  All  Such  Rooms  Studied 

Type  of  Shade 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

Top  roller .  .            

75.0% 

0.0 

0.0 

21.3 

.9 

0.0 

.9 

1.9 

72.3% 
2.8 
5.2 
8.2 
6.9 
0.0 
3.8 
.8 

63.3% 

Bottom  roller 

.5 

Middle  roller 

Double  roller 

10.6 
15.9 

Movable 

1.4 

Shutter 

5.9 

None 

2.2 

.2 

The  percentage  of  shades  that  are  translucent,  as  judged  by- 
color,  is  considerably  higher  than  in  the  smaller  buildings. 

Conditions  in  regard  to  the  direction  from  which  the  light  comes 


Table  43. — Percentage  of  Class,  Recitation,  and  Study  Rooms  Having 
Translucent  and  Opaque  Shades  (on  Basis  of  Color) 


Percentage 

of  All  Such  Rooms  Studied 

Color  of  Shade 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Four  to  Five 
Teachers 

Ten-r- 
Teachers 

Opaque 

62.9% 
36.2 

.9 

.0 

52.4% 
43.0 
3.8 
.8 

58.5% 

Translucent 

34.4 

None 

7.1 

No  data 

0.0 

are  better  than  in  the  one-  and  two-teacher  schools.  Here,  while 
the  left  and  rear  lighting  is  most  frequent,  the  unilateral  type  is 
found  in  a  considerable  percentage  of  the  cases. 

83 


Table  44. 


-Percentage  of  Class,  Recitation,  and  Study  Rooms  Having 
Light  from  Different  Directions 


Window  Placement 


Percentage  of  All  Such  Rooms  Studied 


Three  to  Four 
Teachers 


Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 


Ten  + 
Teachers 


Front 

Left 

Rear 

Right 

Front,  left 

Front,  rear 

Front,  right 

Left,  rear 

Left,  right 

Rear,  right 

Front,  left,  rear 

Front,  left,  right 

Left,  rear,  right 

Front,  rear,  right.  .  .  . 
Front,  left,  rear,  right 

Top 

No  data 


0.0% 
16.2 
.9 

0.0 

2.7 

0.0 

0.0 
53.2 

2.7 

4.5 

0.0 

0.0 
19.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 


o.o% 

26.5 
1.4 

.5 
2.2 
0.0 
0.0 
47.6 
1.4 
5.8 
3.9 

.2 
8.4 

.7 

.5 

.0 

.9 


•2% 
44.2 
3.4 

.2 
1.5 
0.0 
0.0 
43.5 
1.3 
2.6 
0.0 
0.0 
2.2 
0.0 
0.0 

.2 

.7 


10*= teacher 

schools 


Per  cent  of  all  schools  studied 
1  side  2  sides 


5-9=teacher 
schools 


3-4= teacher 

schools 


a.  Top  0.2#.  no  data  0.7£ 

b.  4  sides  0.5%,  no  data  0.! 


Diagram  21. — Window  placement  in  schools  with  three  or  more  teachers 

(c)  Heating  Facilities. — A  few  of  these  larger  buildings, 
especially  in  the  3-4  teacher  group,  still  use  stoves  (Table  45),  but 
modern  types  of  heating  are  generally  found.  Relatively  few  have 
thermostatic  control  (Table  46). 

84 


Table  45.— Heating  Facilities 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Kind 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

Hot-air  furnace 

Steam  boiler 

Hot  water  boiler 

54.9% 
29.0 

0.0 

3.2 
12.9 

0.0 

0.0 

45.7% 
38.6 

2.8 

0.0 

4.3 

8.6 

0.0 

35.5% 
46.7 
2.2 

Gas  stoves 

0.0 

Stoves 

0.0 

Combination  1  and  2 

No  data 

15.6 
0.0 

(d)  Fire  Protection. — Table  47  presents  several  phases  of  this 
subject.  The  situation  varies  so  much  that  each  group  of  schools 
should  be  considered  separately. 

In  the  5-9  group,  51.4  percent  have  no  apparatus;  44.3  percent 
have  only  one  kind  of  apparatus;  75.7  percent  have  no  fire-retarding 
features;    all  except  14.2  percent  have  either  a  gong  or  a  special 

Table  46. — Thermostatic  Control 


Is  There  Thermostatic 
Control  ? 

Percentage  of  All  Schools 

Studied 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

Yes 

No 

No  data 

0.0% 
96.8 
3.2 

7  jcrr 

90.0 
2.8 

22.2% 
76.6 
2.2 

fire  alarm  system;  22.9  percent  have  combustible  and  inflammable 
material  stored  in  the  building;  in  91.4  percent  of  the  cases  the  out- 
side doors  open  out;  in  70  percent  of  the  schools  none  of  the  exit 
doors  are  supplied  with  panic  bolts.  It  is,  therefore,  clear  that 
many  buildings  are  lacking  facilities  essential  to  the  proper  protec- 
tion of  life  and  property. 

85 


Table  47. — Various  Factors  in  Fire  Protection 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Factors  in  Fire  Protection 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

1.  Apparatus 

Extinguishers 

P'ire  hose 

22.5% 

0.0 

0.0 
77.5 

0.0 

22.5% 
0.0 

0.0% 
0.0 

16.1 

83.9 

0.0 

0.0% 
12.9 
29.0 
58.1 

0.0 

12.9% 
87.1 
0.0 

83.9% 
9.7 
3.2 
3.2 

77.4% 

0.0 

3.2 

6.5 

0.0 
12.9 

0.0 

41.4% 
11.4 

0.0 
51.4 

1.4 

44.3% 
4.3 

5.7% 
5.7 

20.0 

75.7 
2.8 

0.0% 
48.5 
54.2 
14.2 

0.0 

22.9% 
72.9 
4.2 

91.4% 
5.7 
2.9 
0.0 

70.0% 

0.0 

4.3 

5.7 

0.0 
17.1 

2.9 

68.8% 
35.5 

Automatic  sprinkler 

None 

No  data 

0.0 

17.7 

0.0 

2.  Number  of  kinds  of  appa- 
ratus 
One  kind 

55.5% 
24.4 

4.4% 
28.8 

51.1 

18.0 
0.0 

Two  kinds 

3.  Fire  retarding  provisions 
Basement    isolated    from 
first  floor 

Basement  ceiling  fireproof . 
Heating     apparatus     en- 
closed   

No  such  provisions 

No  data 

4.  Alarm  systems 

Automatic 

Special  signal 

0.0% 
44.4 

Gong 

None 

No  data 

71.1 

4.4 
0.0 

5.  Combustible   and  inflam- 
mable material  stored  in 
building 

Yes 

No 

No  data 

26.6% 
73.3 
0.0 

6.  Outside  doors  open 
Out 

93.4% 
0.0 
2.2 

In 

Some  of  each 

No  data 

4.4 

7.  Percentage  of  exit  doors 
supplied  with  anti-panic 
bolts 

o% 

1-24 

25-49 

50-74 

75-99 

33.3% 

0.0 

2.2 
17.8 

6.7 

100 

Not  certain 

35.6 

4.4 

86 


10*=teacher 
schools 


5-9=teacher 
schools 


Per  cent  of  all  schools  studied 
Fire  apparatus  None 

l82| 


3-4=teacher 
school 3 


77 


10* = teacher 
schools 


Fire  retarding  provision 
[821 


None 


5-9=teacher 
schools 


3-4=teacher 
schools 


76 


84 


*  No  data. 
Diagram  22. — Fire  protection  in  buildings  with  three  or  more  teachers 

(e)  Methods  of  Cleaning. — Even  in  these  larger  buildings  dry 
sweeping  is  still  the  prevailing  form,  while  approximately  three- 
fourths  only  of  the  schools  have  oiled  floors. 

Table  48. — Methods  of  Cleaning 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

1.  Sweeping 

Dry 

74.2% 
19.3 

0.0 

6.5 

67.8% 
29.0 
3.2 

72.9% 
25.7 

0.0 

1.4 

75.7% 
24.3 
0.0 

60.0% 
33.4 

Compound 

Vacuum 

4.4 

No  data 

2.2 

2.  Is  floor  oiled? 

Yes 

82.2% 
17.8 

No 

No  data 

0.0 

87 


(/)    Artificial  Lighting. — Electricity   is   the  most  frequent 
method  of  lighting,  but  there  is  altogether  too  large  a  percentage 


Table  49. — Artificial  Lighting 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

1.  Type 

Gas 

9.7% 
22.6 
12.9 
54.8 

0.0 

25.8% 

3.2 

3.2 

3.2 
54.9 

9.7 

5.7% 
61.4 

1.4 
32.8 

0.0 

50.0% 

4.3 

4.3 

8.6 
32.8 

0.0 

26.6% 
91.1 

Electricity 

Lamp 

None 

No  data 

0.0 
4.4 
0.0 

2.  Method 

Direct 

46.7% 
6.7 

Indirect 

Semi-indirect 

13.4 

Two  or  more  kinds 

None 

No  data 

26.6 
4.4 
2.2 

of  the  3-4  and  5-9  teacher  groups  that  have  no  provision.  This 
means  that  in  such  places  the  building  cannot  be  utilized  to  the 
fullest  extent  for  community  and  extra-curriculum  activities. 


Table  50. — Types  of  Blackboard 


Percentage  of  All  Rooms  Studied 

Type 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

1.  Slate 

2.  Composition 

54.7% 

13.9 

10.2 

1.9 

.9 

6.4 
4.6 

.9 
2.8 

.9 
2.8 

79.4% 

8.3 

1.0 

.2 

0.0 

2.9 
.6 

.8 

.2 

.8 

5.8 

81.5% 
5.9 

3.  Wood 

4.  Cloth 

5.  Plaster 

Combinations 

1  and  2 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

1.3 

1  and  3 

0.0 

1  and  4 

0.0 

1  and  5 

1.9 

All  others 

1.5 

No  data 

7.8 

+ 


u 


u 


K:  t-TT~lBl 


u 


Built  about  1870;  remodeled  about  1905;  stairway  inadequate  in 
case  of  fire;  no  provision  for  fire  protection;  no  artificial  lighting  sys- 
tem; outdoor  toilets  in  bad  condition;  laboratory  quite  inadequate; 
fairly  good  study  hall  but  no  other  special  rooms;  large  playground 
area  but  no  play  apparatus.     Score:   438. 


What  a  visit  to  the  basement  revealed 


Evidence  of  community  apathy 
An  illustration  of  a  poor  building  in  a  small  village 


(g)  Blackboards. — The  blackboard  situation  is  much  better 
here  than  in  the  one-  and  two- teacher  schools,  though  in  a  few  of  the 
3-4  teacher  buildings  some  attention  still  needs  to  be  directed  to 
this  matter. 

(h)  Play  Facilities. — In  the  discussion  of  the  grounds  for  one- 
teacher  schoolhouses  it  was  pointed  out  that  a  space  of  about  one 
acre  was  necessary  in  order  to  provide  room  for  the  building,  walks, 
some  lawn,  shrubbery,  and  trees,  and  for  playing  certain  games  that 
are  common  in  the  rural  school.  In  the  larger  schools,  where  the 
number  of  children  is  greater,  it  has  been  customary  to  use  another 
unit  of  measurement — the  number  of  square  feet  per  pupil  in  the 
playground.  The  size  of  this  unit  has  been  variously  stated. 
Strayer  and  Englehardt  use  as  the  standard  100  square  feet  ex- 
clusive of  space  for  gardens  and  athletic  fields.  On  this  basis  the 
first  two  groups  rank  well,  though  it  must  be  remembered  that  there 
is  still  a  fairly  large  percentage  that  fall  below  this  figure.  The 
10  +  teacher  group  is  far  short  of  meeting  this  standard. 


Table  51. — Playground  Area  per  Pupil  in  Average  Daily  Attendance 


Square  Feet 

Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Per  Pupil 

Three  to  Four 

Five  to  Nine 

Ten  + 

Teachers 

Teachers 

Teachers 

0-  24 

6.5% 

2.9% 

20.1% 

25-  49 

6.5 

5.7 

6.7 

50-  74 

0.0 

5.7 

22.2 

75-  99 

3.2 

7.1 

2.2 

100-124 

9.7 

8.6 

15.6 

125-149 

3.2 

2.8 

4.4 

150-174 

3.2 

4.4 

0.0 

175-199 

3.2 

8.6 

0.0 

220-224 

12.8 

2.8 

6.7 

225-249 

6.5 

4.4 

0.0 

250-274 

6.5 

7.1 

4.4 

275-299 

0.0 

2.8 

2.2 

300-324 

0.0 

2.8 

2.2 

325-349 

0.0 

8.6 

2.2 

350-374 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

375-plus 

38.7 

20.0 

6.7 

No  data 

0.0 

5.7 

4.4 

Median  =  232  sq.  ft. 


196  sq.  ft. 


71  sq.  ft. 


89 


50      100     150 
Square  feet  per  pupil 


200 


250 


300 


350 


400 


Diagram  23. — Percentage  of  schools  with  three  or  more  teachers  having  play- 
ground area  per  pupil  equal  to  or  larger  than  the  amount  shown 

Playground  apparatus  is  sadly  neglected,  as  the  figures  in  Table 
52  show.  The  percentage  of  schools  in  the  different  groups  having 
no  apparatus  is  77.3  percent,  61.5  percent,  and  60.0  percent,  re- 
spectively. 


Table  52. — Number  of  Pieces  of  Playground  Apparatus 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Number  of  Pieces 

Three  to  Four 

Five  to  Nine 

Ten  + 

Teachers 

Teachers 

Teachers 

None 

77.3% 

61.5% 

60.0% 

1 

12.9 

22.8 

15.6 

2 

6.5 

5.7 

8.9 

3 

0.0 

2.9 

6.7 

4 

3.3 

5.7 

4.4 

5 

0.0 

1.4 

2.2 

6-10 

0.0 

0.0 

2.2 

90 


(/)  Special  Rooms. — Table  53  is  interesting  for  the  purpose  of 
showing  the  extent  to  which  buildings  of  different  size  have  various 
kinds  of  special  rooms.  In  many  of  these  cases  these  rooms  are 
assembly  rooms,  laboratories  or  libraries  by  courtesy  largely,  as 

Table  53. — Percentage  of  Schools  Having  Certain  Kinds  of  Special 

Rooms 


Percentage  of  All  Schools  Studied 

Kind  of  Special  Room 

Three  to  Four 
Teachers 

Five  to  Nine 
Teachers 

Ten  + 
Teachers 

Assembly 

Auditorium 

Commercial 

Dark  room 

Drawing 

Gymnasium 

Janitor's 

3.2% 
6.4 

6.4 

3^2 

25.8 

3.2 

25.S 

6^4 
3.2 

3.2 

9.6 

9.6 

12.9 

3.2 

6.4 

1  A°7 
11.4 

5.7 

L4 
14.2 

1.4 

2.8 

2.8 
61.4 

4.2 

72.8 
11.4 
11.4 

31.4 

15.7 

4.2 

62.8 

i.i 

4.2 

8.8% 
33.3 
22.2 

2.2 
37.7 
31.1 

Kindergarten 

Lecture 

Library  

Lunch 

Laboratories 

1.  General 

20.0 

24.4 

68.8 

8.8 

82.2 

2.  Agricultural 

3.  Home-making 

31.1 
33.3 

Manual  training 

13.3 

Museum 

Music 

2.2 
13.3 

Nurse's 

2.2 

Officers' 

Physical  education 

Play  room 

Store  room 

42.2 

2.2 

17.7 

13.3 

Study  hall 

75.5 

Swimming  pool 

Teachers'  room 

11.1 

Training  class 

6.6 

Uncertain 

15.6 

may  be  suspected  by  a  study  of  the  facts  given  in  Table  54,  showing 
the  extent  to  which  the  rooms  that  are  provided  fall  short  of  meet- 
ing the  standards.  This  criticism  is  especially  applicable  to  labora- 
tories of  less  recent  origin.    There  has  been  a  tendency,  especially 


91 


in  the  older  buildings,  to  provide  makeshifts,  probably  with  the 
idea  that  a  new  building  or  remodeling  would  soon  give  adequate 
facilities. 

The  following  statements  regarding  the  deficiencies  of  different 
types  of  rooms  are  found  altogether  too  frequently,  as  reported  by 
the  persons  scoring  the  buildings. 

1.  Three  teachers,  8  grades — "Library  poorly  heated." 

2.  Three  teachers,  10  grades — "Laboratory  poorly  equipped  and 
impossible  of  good  work;  1  table  for  8  pupils,  used  for  other  pur- 
poses." 

3.  Four  teachers,  9  grades — "Laboratory  for  Biology  also  used 
as  the  one  High  School  class  room.  Shelves  for  tables.  Not  well 
equipped.     Too  small." 

4.  Four  teachers,  10  grades — "Science  laboratory;  lacks  nearly 
all  things.  Has  plain  table  and  running  water,  but  no  disposal  of 
waste.    Apparatus  is  kept  in  alcove." 

5.  Five  teachers,  12  grades — "Science  laboratory  too  small  and 
crowded.  Lacks  space  for  keeping  apparatus.  Lacks  water,  gas, 
etc.    Lacks  modern  individual  experiment  table." 

6.  Five  teachers,  12  grades — "Laboratory  lacks  practically 
everything." 

7.  Nine  teachers,  12  grades — "Laboratory  lacks  modern  equip- 
ment.   Has  only  benches  and  sink.    In  basement;  very  low." 

8.  Five  teachers,  12  grades — "Library  room  with  practically  no 
light." 

9.  Fifteen  teachers,  12  grades — "Laboratory  lacks  water,  work 
tables,  storage  space,  blackboards,  ventilation  and  gas." 

10.  Eleven  teachers,  12  grades — "Manual  Training  room  in 
small  separate  building  fitted  with  benches;  few  tools.  Heated  by 
stoves.    No  ventilation." 

11.  Sixteen  teachers,  12  grades — "Laboratory  in  basement;  no 
water,  no  gas,  poor  light.  Agricultural  and  Domestic  Science  in 
rented  building  ^4  mile  from  high  school.  Adequate  rooms  with 
full  equipment,  electricity,  water,  etc.,  and  plenty  of  room." 

But  hope  that  we  shall  ultimately  have  higher  standards  is 
fostered  by  such  cases  as  the  following: 

1.  Seven     teachers,     5     grades — "Gymnasium     60' x  50' x  25'. 

92 


Shower  bath  for  boys  and  girls.     Well  equipped.     Hot  and  cold 
water.   Well  lighted." 

2.  Three  teachers,  8  grades — "Teachers'  room  with  couch,  chairs, 
telephone,  etc." 

3.  Eight  teachers,  12  grades — "Domestic  Science  room,  first 
floor,  well  lighted  and  equipped  with  tables,  chairs,  range,  2  oil 
stoves,  cupboard,  etc." 

4.  Thirty-one  teachers,  12  grades — "Fine  auditorium  with 
balcony.  Fine  gymnasium  with  shower  baths  connected,  good 
library  room  with  book  stacks." 

5.  Fifteen  teachers,  12  grades — "Large  lunch  room  with  kitchen 
for  serving  hot  lunches." 

It  is  clear  that  some  communities  not  only  need  special  rooms  not 
now  provided,  but  that,  except  in  the  buildings  of  more  recent  con- 
struction, a  critical  analysis  ought  to  be  made  by  the  community 
of  such  facilities  as  are  provided. 

5.    In  What  Respects  Are  These  Buildings  Strong  and  in 
What  Are  They  Weak? 

The  values  assigned  the  groups  of  items  on  the  Strayer-Engle- 
hardt  score  card  were  distributed  so  as  to  show  the  extent  to  which 
the  schools  meet  the  standard.  The  values  used  were  the  original, 
not  the  adjusted  scores.  From  Diagram  24  one  may  learn  at  a 
glance,  through  the  location  of  the  median  point,  where  the  build- 
ings are  strongest  and  where  they  are  weakest.  Thus  the  5-9 
teacher  group  is  strongest  on  location  and  drainage  of  grounds, 
location  and  connection  of  class  rooms,  and  class  room  equipment ; 
it  is  weakest  in  fire  protection,  mechanical  service  systems,  and 
special  rooms.  The  diagram  enables  one  to  make  readily  a  com- 
parison of  the  standing  of  the  different  groups  of  schools  on  any 
item. 


93 


& 


w  w 

Kfa 


55   Z 

o  w 


bO 


Jh8 

IO  ^h  vo 

oo  oo  <r> 

-l 

CN  O  t^l  NO  Tt" 

^ 

On  vO  00  ^  © 

rg 

tv]  o 

00  *-* 

00  ON  <*0 

f}  J--  r*> 

10          rt(-)rt^iio 

^Oi^fOfOiO 

JL© 

ro  On  ON 

fOOOO 

nloCLO^OrOfO'-lCN 

Vi  c,  r^  n  ih  ro 

C-)  00  <^>  rf<  rf 

t^  C^l  1^ 

u 
d 

*C  °° 

*-•         ■<* 

io 

CN       ■  On 

On  -tf  ^h 

^  no  O  O  "*  no  On      • 

ON  tSt^")M 

(NNO 

+ 

3*5 

*H 

rOTftNiOui 

Ol  CN 

O)  CN  Tf 

'<© 

■      •  ri- 

•      •  t~- 

On  ro      .  ro  -h  ro  On      • 

■TtMH^t 

!N")N 

CN  "* 

rr,      . 

^H   ^H   ^-1 

'-' 

r-4  ro  evi 

1  o 

!o\    • 

t"»  ■>*  Tj<       •  CN 

■       •       •  <M       • 

©   O   ^* 

H 

»-H  CN 

■<*  CN 

-       •  Cvl 

!  cs     • 

(SN       •       •  O 

.       .       .  ^f,       . 

t^-  fS  ro 

■      •  On 

*H  *H 

1  o 

■>*    **   t~- 

rf  ID  O0 

co     •  <r>  -^  h  *-n-^ 

W)O0"^H 

•        •  rH 

00  —I 

sO  i-»  cvi 

CN  ro 

-h      •                          ro, 

io  ro  cs  -h  r-i 

fa  © 

r-  ©  © 

OfOfO 

vO  rc  N  ro  M  Q>  O 

CN  ro  t-i  ©  On 

•  »-i  ro 

.5    w 
^1  aj 
oil 

VO00 

cvi  r^i  ^J< 

NO  «*  r* 

i-l             WCS-HrHN 

rHlOf^COl^ 

'iQ 

On  <^5  nO 

f^vOO 

O  ON  O  O  *0  O  O0 

HO-naCN 

fl  «*5  »-• 

«*  ^° 

"H 

i-HtHN 

rf        no  cn        r-i  *-i 

CN  ^-h  ro  »-i  — i 

"-* 

fa© 

■  c*i  t— 

CO  NO  NO 

ir>  t~-  t~~  io  "-<  ro  On 

PO  >-i  On  On  *-h 

t—  t —  C^l 

1)    V 

^-* 

"H 

(N 

JN  fO  ■-!  th  io  M  rt 

cs 

t*5 

fa 

1  o 

•      •  rC 

OO^CNO^O 

x*       ■      -t^       ■ 

<~0  NO  NO 

^*  CN 

ro               (NN 

N>HI») 

■  lO       ■  o-,  ro  t~0      ■  C 

•■•«*• 

t^  rr)  t^. 

o 

■  th     •  cn  — i           •  c 

<r-l  t^  -H 

1  o 

— '  o 

00   -H 

OO  ■*  ^5 

r*^ro 

•      •  ro      •      -On 

00  O  nO  ©  O 

1* 

IO  NO  <^J 

.      •            ■      •  ro 

W;  CS  tN   -H   W 

faO 

vO  fO  O0 

NO  t^l  ro 

nO      ■  ©  O      •  NO  On 

©  O  fN  On  uo 

3 
O    m 

fa        *"• 

O  J3 

S00 

t^l  CN  ■* 

•H^jiN 

C-g        •  ,-H  ,-H        ■            _l 

rtKjm-Hio 

1  0 

NO  fO  On 

<*>  ro  On 

oo")Of)o«) 

CN  IO  NO  f>  fO 

ro 

5^= 

■r-l    «H    »H 

MMM 

f^              T^<    l-H              t-H 

rO^MMtN 

JiQ 

•      ■© 

•  <■<;  tN 

On  no  oi  no  no  <*5  fO 

•  ro  O  NO  ro 

t^ 

J3 

s^ 

CN 

O!          ro          HrtM 

»-l  (N 

•    ■  o 

©  On  ©  ©  f-  IO  NO 

.      .      .  *o 

in  ro  ON 

H 

»H  CN 

— 

rtl^HH            liO  -H 

•^-HN 

■      ■  ro 

On  C~)  ro  — '  •>*  O      •  C 

.      .      .\0 

OO  t-~  00 

© 

l/J          iONrt       •  C 

•  «— 1 

<t00O 

II 

u 

u 

o 
o 

CO 

■4-> 

u 

0) 

L- 

fa 

t4H 

m 

4) 

o 

E 

3  » 

c 

aj 

a 

•B  E 
Si 

8 

i  £ 

en    c 

E 

a. 

; 

4 

Class  rooms: 
Location  and  connection 
Construction  and  finish . 

O 

■9 

M 

is 

pecial  rooms: 
Large  rooms  for  general 
Rooms  for  school  official 
Special  service  rooms .  .  . 

fa 

te: 

Location 

Drainage 

Size  and  form .  .  . 

.  Buildings: 

A.  Placement 

B.  Gross  structure.  . 
C     Tnternnl  structure 

Service  system: 
Heating  and  vent 
Fire  protection  sy 
Cleaning  system . 
Artificial  lighting 
Electric  service  sy 
Water  supply  syst 

1- 
4 

— 

t. 

''E 
a 

i 

■o 
c 
S 

°  F 

2  c 

•JJ.S 

^  E 

w<WU 

,_;  <  m  u  Q  W  fa  O  5 

I^WUQt 

w<nu 

hH 

i—l 

h- 1 

M 

*-< 

r> 

94 


Per  cant 


I.  Site 

B.  Drainage 

A.  Location 

C.  Size  and  form 

II.  Bulldlng3 

B.  Gross  structure 
A.  Placement 

C.  Internal  structure 

HI.  Service  system 
G.  Toilet  system 

A.  Heating  and  ventilating 

C.  Cleaning  system 

D.  Artificial  lighting  system 
F.  Water  supply  system 

E.  Electric  service  system 

B.  Fire  protection  system 
H.  Mech.  service  system 

IV.  Class  Rooms 

A.  Location  and  connection 

B.  Construction  and  finish 
E.  Equipment 

C-  Illumination 

D.  Cloakrooms  and  wardrobes 

V.  Special  room3 

C  Special  service  rooms 

B.  Rooms  for  school  officials 

A.  Large  rooms  for  general  use 


10*  =      5-9  = 
teacher  e=a teacher 

20    40    60 


3-4  = 

» teacher 
80    100 


mm))\mmmm)mi 


^msmmm 


'7777,7///////7777777S7777777. 


'7777^77^ 


22^^^^ 


Diagram  24. — Median  score  of  buildings  with  three  or  more  teachers  on  each 
of  the  main  groups  of  items  considered.  The  median  is  interpreted  in  terms  of 
the  percentage  of  a  perfect  score  that  is  attained 

95 


II.     A  PROGRAM  OF  IMPROVEMENT 

The  data  presented  on  the  preceding  pages  emphasize  the  fact 
that  New  York  state  does  not  provide  satisfactory  buildings  for  its 
school  children.  The  situation  is  worst,  and  is  really  serious,  in 
the  one-teacher  schools.  In  the  two-teacher  schools  it  is  better 
but  still  in  great  need  of  improvement.  In  the  schools  of  3  teachers 
and  over  the  situation  is  mixed — satisfactory  in  a  few  places,  in 
need  of  improvement  in  most,  utterly  inadequate  in  some. 

A.  WHAT  ARE  THE  CAUSES  OF  PRESENT  CONDITIONS? 

1.    How  Representative  District  Superintendents  Analyze 
the  Situation 

We  may  approach  the  question  most  advantageously  by  learning 
what  the  district  superintendents  consider  the  causes  of  present 
conditions.  A  request  to  this  effect  was  made  of  each  of  the  37 
co-operating  superintendents.  The  results  are  given  herewith. 
Causes  1  to  5  were  suggested  on  the  inquiry  blanks;  other  causes 
given  were  inserted  by  the  superintendents  in  blank  spaces  pro- 
vided for  that  purpose. 

Cause  number  7  is  given  a  separate  place  because  it  may  be  quite 
different  from  cause  3.  In  all  probability  the  superintendents 
intended  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  inability  of  a  community 
to  maintain  a  satisfactory  school  building  and  its  unwillingness  to 
do  so.  Cause  9  involves  some  of  the  elements  of  cause  2,  but  it  is 
given  a  separate  place  because  it  suggests  not  lack  of  knowledge 
so  much  as  complete  apathy  regarding  the  question. 

Accepting  this  analysis  of  causes  at  its  face  value,  we  get  much 
light  upon  the  problem  of  securing  improvement  in  the  building 
situation.  The  writer  is  inclined  to  give  considerable  weight  to 
this  analysis  not  only  because  the  superintendent  is  directly  in 
touch  with  the  problem  daily  but  because  the  analysis  is  supported 

96 


by  facts  that  will  be  presented  later  and  because  it  agrees  so  well 
with  tentative  conclusions  the  writer  had  formed  through  his 
travels  in  the  state. 

Undoubtedly  the  possibility  of  consolidation  prevents  some 
superintendents  from  issuing  orders  for  condemnation  or  alterations. 
It  may  be  a  forlorn  hope  in  most  communities  so  far  as  the  im- 
mediate future  is  concerned,  but  it  does  seem  shortsighted  to  a 
professional  officer  to  expend  large  sums  upon  schools  that  are 
within  two  miles  or  less  of  each  other,  particularly  when  the  country 
is  fairly  level,  the  roads  good,  and  the  school  attendance  small. 
In  many  cases  a  program  for  improved  buildings  should  go  hand-in- 
hand  with  a  frank  discussion  of  securing  better  educational  condi- 
tions of  all  kinds  by  that  type  of  group  co-operation  represented  in 
consolidation. 

Table  55. — Causes  of  Present  Condition  of  School  Buildings  as  Indi- 
cated by  District  Superintendents 
Total  number  answering 24 

1.  Possibility  of  consolidation  and  hence  extensive  repairs  on  existing 

buildings  should  not  be  made 19 

2.  People  believe  existing  conditions  are  satisfactory  and  would  oppose 

improvement 17 

3.  District  is  financially  unable  to  make  needed  improvement 14 

4.  (During  last  3  years  only)  cost  of  building  is  too  high 13 

5.  State  requirements  (stated  in  law)  are  inadequate  and  rulings  of  the 

Division  of  Grounds  and  Buildings  are  not  sufficiently  authoritative 
with  the  rural  population 7 

6.  Factions  prevent  unity  for  building  purposes 2 

7.  Afraid  of  high  taxes 2 

8.  State  regulations  not  enforced 1 

9.  Indifference 3 

One  cause  not  mentioned  in  Table  55 — lack  of  persistent  leader- 
ship on  the  part  of  the  superintendent — deserves  mention  at  least. 
It  is  so  bound  up  with  other  causes,  such  as  indifference  and  ignor- 
ance of  patrons  regarding  proper  standards,  lack  of  sufficiently 
definite  state  standards,  failure  of  the  state  to  withhold  funds  when 
unsatisfactory  conditions  are  not  improved,  and  the  non-existence 
of  funds  to  reward  progress,  that  it  would  be  quite  hopeless  to 
attempt  to  determine  its  exact  influence  as  a  contributing  cause. 

The  other  causes  given  can  readily  be  analyzed  by  groups  and 
at  least  some  objective  data  regarding  their  influence,  together  with 
suggestions  for  overcoming  them,  can  be  presented. 
7  97 


2.  Causes  of  Present  Conditions  as  Revealed  by  Statistical 

Analysis 

One  of  the  important  causes  appears  to  be  the  financial  ability 
of  the  community.  In  order  to  study  this  factor  more  carefully, 
Tables  56  to  60  were  constructed  to  show  the  relationship  between 
the  quality  of  a  building  as  measured  by  the  score  card  and  the  real 
valuation  of  the  district  in  which  the  building  is  found.  Two  ques- 
tions may  be  raised:  (1)  Are  there  communities  financially  unable 
to  provide  a  satisfactory  building  without  assistance?  (2)  Do 
communities  actually  exert  themselves  for  better  buildings  ac- 
cording to  their  financial  ability? 

In  Table  68  facts  are  presented  indicating  that  the  cost  of  im- 
proving a  one-teacher  building  receiving  about  the  median  score 
and  having  deficiencies  that  are  fairly  typical  would  be  around 
$1,200.  Assume  that  such  a  community  would  hope  to  meet  the 
essential  standards  by  the  end  of  a  four-year  period.  This  would 
make  a  cost  of  $300  for  each  of  the  four  years.  If  now  one  takes  the 
median  real  valuation  of  the  one- teacher  schools — $91,000 — he  can 
readily  compute  that  a  community  with  this  wealth  must  levy  a 
rate  of  3.29  mills  to  raise  the  $300.  Since  the  median  real  tax-rate 
levied  by  common  school  districts  over  and  above  the  state  funds 
now  given  is  5.44  mills,  one  can  see  that  the  rate  of  3.29  mills 
necessary  in  the  illustrative  case  is  high  for  the  purpose  of  building 
improvement.  An  inspection  of,  for  example,  Table  56  will  make 
it  clear  that  no  matter  what  rate  we  set  as  reasonable  for  building 
improvement,  there  will  be  some  districts  in  the  state  that  cannot 
meet  the  desired  standards  without  carrying  a  burden  quite  beyond 
reason.  For  example,  one  of  the  37  schools  in  the  600-649  group 
having  a  valuation  between  $25,000  and  $49,000  would  need  to 
levy  a  rate  of  from  6  to  13  mills.  Clearly  the  state  should  do  some- 
thing to  help  such  communities. 

A  second  question  involved  is  whether  communities  exert  them- 
selves on  the  matter  of  school  building  according  to  their  ability. 
Is  the  good  building  in  a  relatively  wealthy  district  and  the  poor 
building  in  a  district  that  is  poor  relatively?  To  the  extent  that 
the  wealthy  districts  do  not  have  a  good  building  some  measures 
need  to  be  taken  to  see  that  such  communities  do  as  much  as  they 

98 


8; 


St 


•— "CNrft-^CNOOLOOOOOlO-* 
i-c  -h  CN  CN  »-t 


iHWN^fO^fONNvO^ 


.  to  ^h       •       -rnro^rt 


a 


o 


w 


^  I 
O  "* 
in  t-- 

€»»    I 

CN  "* 


ID  Ov 
CN  CN 


cn  >* 

CN  CN 


r-a  *-i     -re 


*-H  ■         •  M  O  fO  -^   CS   fO         ■         •         •         • 

rtr^N       •  t-i  CN  <-<  CN  r*}       ■  «H       •       • 

.  .       ■  CO  r-(  CN  •**<  «-l  <T>  f*5  CN  CN       • 

»-H  -CN       ■  O  IT;  O  Hlf)  N  H 

■  •        ■r-HOrHirjUO'Ol^tS        -«H 

.  .  ,-H       .  tJ<  t^<  Tf  00  00  Tf  CN       •       • 

•  •       ■  N  rt  O  »  --1  ^'t  fO  N  ■H 

•  -CN       ■f^OOO'HNO^Ol 

•  •^-icN'-ioo'r)OfororO'^     • 


> 


IT)  OV 

©*# 

IT)  t^ 


5^ 


CNCNCN'OOOlO<sOt^rO'-1 


h« 


+  OnOOOOnOOOOnOOOnOvOOOO 
!©©©©©©©i©ci©i©©©©©-§£ 


99 


are  able.  The  suggestion  then  is  that  if  such  a  condition  exists  in 
regard  to  this  problem,  one  or  both  of  two  procedures  should  be 
followed :  A  type  of  aid  that  will  stimulate  each  community  to  do 
all  it  can  should  be  devised;  state  legislation  requiring  reasonably 
high  minimum  standards  should  be  passed.  In  the  case  of  the  dis- 
trict of  low  valuation  some  form  of  aid  should  be  granted  to  render 
the  necessary  assistance. 

Average 
score 

1000 


750 


500 


250 


Real  valuation  -  thouaands  of  dollars 

Diagram  25. — Relationship  between  median  total  scores  (essential  +  addi- 
tional) of  one-teacher  buildings  and  the  average  real  valuations  of  the  districts 
maintaining  them.  The  dots  show  the  average  score  for  the  different  valuations. 
The  line  indicates  the  general  trend 

Table  56  gives  a  distribution  of  one-teacher  schools  by  total 
score  received  and  by  real  valuation  of  the  communities.  The  real 
valuations  are  those  set  by  the  State  Tax  Commission.  Inspec- 
tion of  this  table  makes  it  clear  that  there  is  some  correlation  be- 
tween quality  of  building  and  wealth  of  district,  since  in  general 
the  schools  with  lowest  score  are  in  the  poorer  districts  and  those 
with  highest  scores  are  in  the  wealthier  districts.    However,  it  is 


OfO^fll^fOOiOvO^ 


£8 

u->  Ov 
t~«  On 

St 

o  ■* 
IT)  1^ 

St 


Tf  CS  t^         CN  ^  CN  ^ 


s; 


iri  On 
g»    I 

O  Tt< 

in  t-« 

m  rn 
4&  ! 
u-)  Os 
CN  •>* 


8 


,y  s   h 


"->  On 
t~-  On 

99     I 


& 


in  On 


8; 


rttSN-Hrl 


K 


iO  On 
l~»  On 
63    I 

O  ^ 
in  i^. 

99    I 

iO  On 

St 

W 

C  ^ 

j5«^ 


CS       •  »-H  »-l 


<y 


o 


+  OnOOnOOOnOnOOOnOnOnOnOnOnOn 
On'*'On'^,On'^'On'^'On'4'On'*iOn'^J,On'^' 

l— i.1/5  o  ")  o  "i  o  I'i  o  "■.  o  m  o  «  o  ifl  o 

«Ol^»00l^t^\0NOlOir,  Tjl^Cf>t<5fNlCN| 


o> 


~'p 


IOI 


clear  that  the  correlation  is  far  from  perfect.  Thus,  of  the  79  schools 
in  the  750-799  group,  17  fall  either  in  the  valuation  group  that  con- 
tains the  median  valuation  or  in  groups  below,  while  the  other 
schools  are  scattered  throughout  the  table,  1  having  a  valuation  of 
$525,000  or  more. 

The  coefficient  of  correlation  (Pearson's)  is  .39  ±  .017.     That 
this  correlation  figure  is  no  higher  compels  us  to  conclude  that 


Average 
score 

100C 


?50 


500 


250 


ii 

ii 

,r  t 

ii 


iO      m     <>    m    <f     oi 


<T> 

CM 

■* 

r~ 

CT> 

CM 

S 

r- 

a\ 

cm 

.-« 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

f> 

t-5 

tl 

^ 

<d  oiooiaomoioOiOOiOQioomti 

-o      moioocMmr-ocMif3t^oc\jiot>-c5cMmc>-<B 

£        CMlOt*t-«rH(-t.~tCNICNJC\JC>J[OtOtOn'<#<*«#'<*|» 

Real  valuation  -  thousands  of  dollars 

Diagram  26. — Relationship  between  average  total  scores  (essential  +  addi- 
tional) of  two-teacher  buildings  and  the  average  real  valuations  of  the  district 
maintaining  them.  The  dots  show  the  average  score  for  the  different  valuations. 
The  line  indicates  the  general  trend 

while  wealth  of  community  is  one  factor  in  good  school  buildings 
in  the  one-teacher  districts,  it  is  not  so  significant  as  might  be  ex- 
pected. Tables  57,  58,  59,  and  60  give  similar  information  for  the 
four  groups  of  larger  buildings,  as  indicated.  No  correlation  figures 
are  presented  for  these  groups  for  the  reason  that  the  number  of 
cases  presented  in  the  tables  is  so  small  that  the  situation  can  be 
adequately  set  forth  through  the  distribution  tables.     Except  in 


I^O£ 

JOAQ 
pUTJQOO'fS 

t*5 

c*5      .      . 

666'Z-0£8'Z$ 

- 

6t8'Z-00Z'Z$ 

669'Z-0SS'Z$ 

6f$'z-<m'z$ 

66e'2-0S2'3$ 

6W'Z-00l'Z$ 

660'^-0?6't$ 

6^6' 1-008' I  $ 

66Z'  1-099'  U 

6t9'l-00S'T$ 

66fr'l-0££'l$ 

6te'T-002'T$ 

66I'I-0S0'I$ 

i— i 

6t0' 1-006$ 

668-0Si$ 

I::::::-::::-:::::: 

tN 

6K-009S 

66^-OSH 

::::::::-::-:-::::: 

ro 

6tM)0f$ 

!        !    !        ;N'-"-iMrtrtrHH    ;    ;    ; 

o 

662-021$ 

.1-1       .       .  «H  «N       ,IH       .       .       . 

lO 

OS  T$  Japufl 

■^ 

.   ,-1   Cvl         .  T+         . 

u 

>-. 
o 
u 

o 

H 

1,000  + 
950-999 
900-949 
850-899 
800-849 
750-799 
700-749 
650-699 
600-649 
550-599 
500-549 
450-499 
400-449 
350-399 
300-349 
250-299 
200-249 
150-199 
Under  150 

"3 
o 

H 

103 


0 


PQ 

o  g 

S3 

«« "S 

ft      "1 

O   T3 
tA     C 

3    9 

w  § 

w  H 
H    c 

s  ^ 

^    <o 

o     «-> 

°    & 

£  § 
SS  -a 

Cfi     >■ 

O     u 

o  ^ 

C/2 


I^iox 

95 

■o 

i3A0  pu«  000'£  $ 

::::::-:-:::-:::::: 

<r> 

666'Z~OS8'Z$ 

6fr8'Z-00i'Z$ 

669'Z-OSS'Z$ 

- 

*— i 

6frS'Z-00fr'Z$ 

CN 

66e'z-osz'zi 

CN 

6rc'Z-00l'Z$ 

660'Z-0S6'l$ 

6t6'l-008'T$ 

- 

66£'I-0£9'I$ 

6W'I-00S'I$ 

.  i-h      .            ,Nrt     ,     .      ,      ! 

-* 

66^'T-0Se'T$ 

6te' 1-003' 1$ 

- 

66l'l-0£0'l$ 

,»H        ,rt(N        .  ^H        .        .        . 

"0 

6*0'  1-006$ 

.  1-4  ^H  H  CN  CN 

r^ 

668-0£Z$ 

.  CN       .       .  ?T>  CN       .1-I«H 

» 

6tZ-009$ 

rtrt        .  T-H  «H  CN  iH 

r-« 

66S-0Sfr$ 

CN  i-H       .  CN       .  ^H                     ,i-IH       .       .       . 

00 

6*fr-00£$ 

o 

66Z"0£l$ 

.rtHHrtfStS 

CO 

051$  ^pufl 

- 

Total  Score 

O 

_1_  On  On  OvOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOnOsOnOn1—1 
T^Ov'*0\'*OsTt,OsrJ<Os'*ON-rflO-*a\^tlON    l, 

§66666666666666666^ 

«OiO\»OOt^t^vO>OiOi')'*TjirOrocsiN»-<i-' 

o 
H 

104 


U     t_ 


I*K>1 

9 

J3AOPUBOOO'?$ 

s 

666' 3-098' 2$ 

6fr8'Z-00i'Z$ 

:::::   :~   :-:::::::::  : 

CN 

669'Z-0SS'Z$ 

v-H 

6W'Z-0(»'  3$ 

- 

66e'3-0S2'Z$ 

::::-:::::-:::::::: 

CM 

6tZ'Z-00l'£$ 

:::::-:-::-:::::::: 

<*3 

660'£-0S6'l$ 

rH                                             *— t 

CN 

6t6'T-008'T$ 

- 

66Z'T-099'T$ 

r*i 

.iHCN       .              

6t9' 1-009' 1$ 

::::-:-   : ,   :::::::: 

lo 

66Vl-05£'l$ 

ro 

6i?e'i-ooz'i$ 

- 

66T'T-0S0'T$ 

:  :  :  : — .  :::::-::::::  : 

c> 

6W)' 1-006$ 

. CN       .       ,«H 

W 

668-09i$ 

::::::::-:-:::::::: 

CN 

6tZ-009$ 

66S-0St$ 

6tt-ooe$ 

663-091$ 

0ST$  ^pun 



- 

u 

O 

(J 

13 
o 
H 

o 
^io  O'ooi'iOiooioOiooi'iO^oio  — 

o 

H 

105 


+ 


8 
W 

in 

W  o 
S  K 

cop; 

«g 
H    W 

O   H 

X  ° 

«  K 
en  O 

O   H 

o 

5 

CO 


Fiox 

00 

0361-9161 

Cvl 

SI6T-II6I 

0T6I-906I 

p»5 

(*3 

S06I-T06I 

006T-968T 

&68T-T68T 

•      ■  »-h        CNu^rou^Ost^oo 

C*3 

068T-988I 

•     •          ••^Tt<\o<^c-Oootr;r-) 

00 

S88I-I88I 

f>  00  i^  ^ -n  o  rO      ■  *H 

H!Ni-l                                  

CO 

o 

088T-9i8I 

•       •               -^l^OOtNNMfOM       •       •               ■       ■ 

■        •                                        H  rt  f;  N  rt                           •        •                 ... 

^j 

SZ8I-TZ8I 

.          .          •          -                        ^    Ol    fN    T-H    ^H                                                    .... 

§ 

a 

0Z81-998I 

o 

c 
U 

£981-1981 

.      .      .,_,      ■r*-;<vi-<*|L<-><n0^t<{NtN*-i      •     •      •     • 

1-^ 

<u 

098I-9S8I 

.    .    •niooN-Hoooartts 

rt  H   O  ri   H  H                  

lO 

SS8T-IS8T 

•o 

0581-9*81 

.      .      .      •rtTf"";'-<OO00Q0"5„ 

.       .       .       •                         rH(NC<5rt                  ^ 

o 

St8T-Tt8T 

00 

0t8T-9e8T 

sesi-iesi 

~ 

0?8T-938t  1 

o 

aaopg  jo  £Z8\ 

00 

IS 
o 

Total'  Score 

o 

1 

106 


the  one-teacher  schools  the  number  of  cases  is  too  small  to  justify 
final  conclusions. 

Another  factor  entering  into  the  problem  of  the  quality  of  the 
school  building  is  its  age.    Table  61  gives  a  distribution  of  the  one- 


Average 
score 

1000 


900 
800 
700 
600 
500 
400 
300 
200 
100 


4 

s 

* 

4 

s 

4 

4* 
f 

t 

2= 

= teach* 

>r  i 

ichc 

)Ol£ 

» 

4 
4* 

t 

1= 

tea 

zhe 

1       1 
r  schools 

uu 

rj 

lO 

* 

3 

u; 

w 

CO 

U3 

c~ 

t> 

CO 

CO 

a> 

CT) 

O 

o 

H 

H 

CO 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CT> 

a> 

cn 

CT. 

n 

a 

P 
cO 

1 

1 
CO 

1 

CO 

i 

<-4 

1 

i 

J> 

1 
l-l 

1 

CO 

1 
<-l 

1 
cO 

1 
r-1 

1 
cO 

I 

I 

cO 

1 

1 

to 

s 

<* 

in 

a 

cO 

CO 

t- 

f- 

CO 

CO 

CT> 

cn 

o 

o 

r4 

f-t 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

cO 

co 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CT> 

CT. 

Oi 

U> 

Date  of  construction 

Diagram  27. — Relationship  between  average  total  scores  (essential  +  addi- 
tional) of  one-  and  two-teacher  buildings  and  the  dates  of  their  construction. 
These  curves  were  determined  by  plotting  the  average  for  the  various  dates  of 
construction,  and  then  the  line  drawn  by  inspection,  greater  weight  being  given 
to  those  points  which  represented  the  greater  number  of  schools 


teacher  schools  by  quality  of  building  and  date  of  construction. 
Are  the  older  buildings  the  poorer  ones?  Diagram  27  presents  the 
matter  more  concretely.    It  will  be  noticed  that  from  1825  to  about 


107 


Fiox 


O\<*5tJit1<00O00u;O,<*» 


V. 

o 
O 


+ 


H 


5  9    a 

O   H     C 

«  3  « 

Jffl     c 

<HH    o 

Sis 

o 
o 
H 
o 


0Z6I-9I6T 


ST6I-TT6T    »*>   :<^^   :    :** 


0I6I-906T 


S06J-J06I 


. n    .    .~* 


00T-968T 


S68I-T68T 


0681-9881 


S88I-T88T 


088T-9i8t 


sm-im 


T-i   ,-H   CN   ^H 


0Z8T-998I 


■ilNrr)      .co 


£981-1981 


098J-9S81 


SS8I-IS81 


0J8T-9t8I 


SWl-It8I 


Of8T-9f8I 


Sf8I-If8I 


0£8I-9Z8I 


ajojag  jo  ££gi 


+  1 


i  On  On  0^  On  On  On  0>  On  On  On  On  On  On  On  On  On  ' 


§On  On  OO  00  t^.  t^  ' 
66666<' 


.      i  rr>  co  cn  cn  i-i  C 

'looioOiooiooi')^ 


108 


u 


l*K>X 

C>1 

0361-9161 

rj 

ST6I-U61 

CN 

0161-9061 

::::::::-::-::::::: 

CN 

£061-1061 

CNJ   —1         .   »-l   »-<         .         .  -H 

o 

0061-9681 

::::::::-:::-:::::: 

rsi 

S681-T68T 

0681-9881 

S88I-I88I 

::::::::-: —   :-::::: 

■* 

088l-9£8I 

*— <            i— 1 

CSI 

5i8I-Ti8I 

0Z8T-998I 

S98T-T981 

098I-9S8T 

SS8I-IS8I 

0S8I-9t8T 

St8I-T^8I 

0t8l-9e8I 

Sf8T-ie8I 

0£8l-9Z8I 

J3JIJB3  jo  qz%\ 

M 
O 
(J 

O 

H 

1,000  + 
950-999 
900-949 
850-899 
800-849 
750-799 
700-749 
650-699 
600-649 
550-599 
500-549 
450-499 
400-449 
350-399 
300-349 
250-299 
200-249 
150-199 
Under  150 

o 
H 

109 


1895  there  is  a  very  slight  tendency  for  the  newer  buildings  to  im- 
prove in  quality,  while  beginning  about  1900  the  rise  is  much  more 
rapid.  In  the  one-teacher  schools  the  correlation  figure  for  the 
entire  period,  1825-1920,  is  .12  ±  .021. 


Average 
score 


900 
800 
700 

600 

4 

/ 

• 

4 

.  _t 

sac 

ner 

sc1 

lOOlS 

^ 

4 
* 

t 

• 

* 

* 

esnn 

H^ 

T 

•  r 

.* 

/, 

400 

5- 

9*' 

,6* 

net 

•  — 

sc 

noc 

0    • 

2s- 
3- 

eac 

*  • 

aer 

3C 

noo 

13 

300 

»• 

ann 

100 

0 

u 
c 

00 

o   c 

o    a 
a> 

J3     <J 

e 

a 

>         u 

3      f 

3           0 

3 

J          f 

3        a 

1       l 

3         c 
H 

}       ^ 
3        <: 

5       u 

1 

0 

O         1 

3       c 

1   s 

<       y 

5     S 

3         U 

3       a 
3       , 

5    s 

1       c 

3        y 

3       a 

<      y 
3      a 

>  u 

)          vi 

>  a 

>  f 

3      c 

>  f 

3       a 

1        y 

>  y 

>  a 

3        u 

3           0 

)       r 

3        a 

3       c 
c 

3        c 

H         <. 

t 

3          c 

3        II 

3       a 
o      a 

i      . 

a 
o      a 

5       c 

3        0 

3       a 

<      y 
3      a 
3      a 

3         II 
%         C 
3         C 

,         , 
3        C 
3         C 

I    I 

3      a 

i 

-»            VI 

r>       O 

3       a 

3         1 
»         C 

3 

3          C 

3     e 

3       r 

l»       c 

! 

-i      y 
5      c 
n       0 

3        U 

i      a 

>  f 

>  r 

■>      a 

>  o 

*         CI 

>  o> 

1 

«         vO 

4         i-t 
»         0"» 

Date  of  construction 

Diagram  28. — Relationship  between  scores  of  buildings  with  three  or  more 
teachers  and  the  dates  of  their  construction.  These  curves  were  determined  by 
plotting  the  averages  for  the  various  dates  of  construction,  and  then  the  line 
drawn  by  inspection,  greater  weight  being  given  to  those  points  which  repre- 
sented the  greater  number  of  schools 

In  the  hope  of  determining  more  definitely  just  when  this  more 
rapid  rise  begins,  the  buildings  erected  during  the  last  30  years  were 
redistributed  into  two-year,  rather  than  five-year,  groups.  These 
data  give  a  coefficient  of  .53  ±  .029.    This  redistribution  tends  to 


throw  the  date  somewhat  later.  The  first  marked  rise  comes  in 
the  1901-02  group.  The  1903-04  group  is  at  the  same  level.  There 
is  a  slight  rise  in  1905-06  and  a  considerable  rise  in  1907-08.  Thus 
while  we  are  unable  to  say  from  the  data  at  hand  just  when  the 
more  rapid  rise  begins,  it  is  clear  that  it  comes  sometimes  during  the 
period  1901  to  1907.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  when  the  data 
for  schools  with  two  or  more  teachers  are  graphed  (Diagrams  27 
and  28),  all  five  groups  of  schools  show  almost  exactly  the  same 
tendency. 

In  attempting  to  explain  this  more  rapid  rise  in  the  relationship 
between  the  quality  of  a  building  and  its  age  one  is  led  to  see  that 
age  itself  involves  several  factors.  For  example,  one  of  these 
factors  is  quite  certain  to  be  the  desire  of  the  community  for  a 
better  building.  Now  we  know  that  there  has  been  throughout 
the  country  greater  interest  in  all  phases  of  education  in  recent 
years,  so  that  one  would  expect  some  tendency  for  the  newer 
buildings  to  reflect  this  interest.  Was  there  any  event  in  the  state 
that  might  explain  a  greater  interest  in  the  improvement  of  build- 
ings that,  as  we  have  seen,  begins  somewhere  between  1901  and 
1907?  In  1904  the  unification  of  the  State  Department  of  Education 
and  the  Board  of  Regents  took  place;  the  state  superintendency 
was  developed  into  the  state  commissionership ;  and  new  legisla- 
tion regarding  building  standards  was  enacted.  Here  undoubtedly 
was  a  stimulus. 

In  looking  for  causes  of  improvement  in  school  buildings  all 
legislation  should,  however,  be  evaluated.  There  are  four  legisla- 
tive acts  and  one  order  of  the  State  Department  that  would  be 
likely  to  have  more  or  less  influence.  These  may  be  considered  from 
two  points  of  view:  (1)  the  effect  these  had  upon  the  actual  score 
of  a  building;  (2)  the  effect  they  had  on  the  more  rapid  rise  in  score 
in  recent  years. 

(1)  Since  1864  the  school  commissioner  (now  the  district  super- 
intendent) has  had  power  to  condemn  unsatisfactory  buildings. 
If  this  law  was  actually  a  factor  in  improvement,  either  it  was  not 
an  important  one  until  about  1900,  as  is  clearly  shown  by  the  low 
scores  presented  in  Diagram  27,  or  the  standards  that  satisfied  the 
superintendents  were  considerably  below  those  used  in  the  scoring 


o 

,J 

o 

c 
0 

.j. 

U 

« 

(M 

w 

0 

H 

u 

<* 

rt 

w 

Q 

H 

fd 

fc 

I 

3 


l^ox 

0Z6I-9I6T 

■* 

ST6I-II6T 

WN(^"-l 

f-~ 

0T61-906T 

,M       .       .w       .       ."-1 

">* 

S06I-T06T 

.  — '  cs  ^t<  »-"*> 

- 

0061-9681 

_l  fO  i-l  Cv| 

t^ 

568I-T68I 

CO 

0681-9881 

:::::::: —   :~  ::-:::  : 

■■* 

S88T-I88I 

&$ 

0881-9^81 

.   <H(S         .   »-H   »H 

UO 

SX8T-U8I 

-H        .        .        .  -H  <X 

-* 

0^81-9981 

CN 

598I-T98I 

:::::::::-:::::-::: 

CSI 

098I-9S8T 

.       .       .       .  «H       .       .  «N 

<n 

SS8T-TS8T 

0581-9*81 

S^8T-It8T 

W8I-9e8I 

££8I-I£8I 

0£8I-9Z8I 

jaip^a  JO  928X 

Total  Score 

O 

_1_  Qi^O^O^OvO^O^^^^^^O^O^O^OO^^ 
f-)CNO^OOOOt~-I--vp>OiO»0'*T4irorO(NCNl^-i    5 

"e3 
O 
H 

I^ox 

.rtt*5iriT}iioi^\Ct»fO'-i'H 

■<*" 

0Z6I-9I6I 

vO 

.       .       .  Cvl  CN  CN 

ST6I-U6I 

.       .  *H       ,Mrt(-l       .       .  ,-h 

t-» 

0I6I-906T 

*© 

S06T-I06T 

:::::::-::::::::::: 

- 

0061-9681 

O 

.  -^  CN 

S68T-T68I 

r*> 

0681-9881 

:   :   :   :   :   : :-:::::::: 

^f 

S88I-I88I 

co 

088T-9Z8T 

- 

SJ8I-U8I 

(H8T-998I 

CO 

£981-1981 

098I-9S81 

:::::::-:::-::::::: 

CN 

S58T-TS8I 

0S8I-9^8T 

::::::::--::-:::::: 

**5 

St8I-It8T 

0t8I-9£8I 

Se8T-Tf8I 

0F8I-9Z8I 

- 

i-H 

rajl-reg  jo  5281 

3JODg  FJOX 

C 

to 
~io  oi'oo'oO'ooioo'oO'oO'oo'o,^; 

>-iOsOs0000t^'t^\O*OlOiOTjHrtirO<v5CNtN»-itJ 

"c3 
o 
H 

"3 


of  the  buildings.  Data  presented  later  (Table  66)  indicate  that  for 
a  few  years  after  1912,  when  the  present  district  superin tendency- 
was  substituted  for  the  old  school  commissionership,  there  was 
some  interest  on  the  part  of  some  of  the  superintendents  in  better 
buildings.  This  is  evidenced  by  the  number  of  orders  for  condem- 
nation and  alteration  issued.  However,  since  this  law  applied  to 
all  school  buildings  and  would  be  more  likely  in  practice  to  apply 
to  the  older  ones,  improvement  in  recent  years  cannot  be  largely 
attributed  to  the  exercise  by  the  district  superintendent  of  the 
power  to  condemn  or  to  require  alteration. 

(2)  Since  1887  there  has  been  the  statute  regarding  toilets 
known  as  the  health  and  decency  act.  This  law  might  affect  the 
score  of  a  one-  or  two-teacher  building.  However,  applying  as  it 
did  to  all  buildings  without  regard  to  date  of  construction,  it  follows 
that  this  law  cannot  account  for  the  rapid  improvement  beginning 
between  1901  and  1907. 

(3)  A  flag  and  pole  were  required  by  law  in  1898.  Since  only  10 
points  on  the  score  card  are  allowed  for  these,  and  since  the  law 
applied  to  all  buildings,  this  statute  cannot  be  considered  as  of  great 
significance  in  the  general  improvement  of  buildings. 

(4)  In  1904,  when  the  state  educational  reorganization  took 
place,  provision  was  made  for  state  approval  of  new  and  remodeled 
buildings.  The  requirements  that  applied  to  one-  and  two-teacher 
buildings  account  for  about  100  points  on  the  score  card,  about  45 
of  which  would  not  likely  be  found  in  most  buildings  erected  earlier. 
There  is  some  doubt  as  to  whether  the  law  gives  the  commissioner 
of  education  power  to  make  other  requirements,  but  whether  or  not 
this  is  the  case  it  is  true  that  the  commissioner,  through  the  building 
specialists  of  the  Department,  had  an  opportunity  to  advise  on 
other  matters  communities  whose  building  plans  were  under  con- 
sideration. Since  these  requirements  applied  only  to  new  or  radi- 
cally remodeled  buildings  it  could  readily  be  an  important  factor  in 
the  improvement  beginning  between  1901  and  1907.  It  is  entirely 
likely  also  that  the  number  of  factors  on  which  advice  would  be 
given  would  show  a  tendency  to  increase  as  time  went  on. 

(5)  In  1916  the  State  Department  issued  an  order  requiring 
sanitary  toilets  (p.  50)  in  certain  schools.    Data  collected  in  this 

114 


study  show  that  about  one-third  of  the  one-teacher  schools  com- 
plied with  this  order  and  that  where  this  was  done  improvement  in 
certain  particulars  (see  pp.  52-54)  generally  resulted.  These  new 
standards  might  effect  the  score  of  a  building  for  as  many  as  30 
points,  and  would  therefore  have  an  appreciable  effect  upon  the 
score  of  a  building.  Aside  from  the  fact  that  the  order  requiring 
these  toilets  exempted,  among  others,  buildings  that  were  likely  to 
be  condemned  or  remodeled,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  age  of  a 
building  was  a  factor  in  determining  the  installation  of  the  chemical 
toilets.  This  order  therefore  cannot  account  for  the  improvement 
since  1901-1907. 

In  brief,  then,  it  would  appear  that  each  of  these  requirements 
had  influence  in  increasing  the  actual  score  of  a  building.  It  would 
appear  that  none  of  them  except  the  law  of  1904  can  account  for 
the  relatively  rapid  improvement  of  the  last  quarter  century. 

Data  are  not  available  that  enable  us  to  separate  and  measure 
the  relative  influence  of  legislation  and  the  desire  of  the  community 
for  better  things.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  two  probably  act  to- 
gether, for  it  is  more  than  likely  that  a  statute,  especially  one  such 
as  that  of  1904,  would  tend  to  stimulate  thought  regarding  better 
building  standards  on  the  part  of  not  only  state  and  county  school 
officials  but  of  local  trustees  and  patrons  as  well. 

Still  less  are  there  facts  by  which  one  can  isolate  and  measure 
the  components  of  these  factors  of  legislation  and  education. 
Especially  is  this  true  of  the  second,  for  education  of  the  community 
may  include  any  or  all  of  the  following  factors  that  stimulate  people 
to  think  regarding  their  buildings:  presence  of  a  modern  building 
in  a  community;  leadership  exercised  by  district  superintendents; 
the  power  of  the  district  superintendent  to  condemn,  acting  as  a 
suggestion;  state  bulletins  and  inspections;  state  law;  farm 
organizations;  the  increasing  influence  in  community  affairs  of 
woman,  who  has  shown  herself  especially  interested  in  education; 
farm  papers;  local  papers,  etc. 

However,  in  spite  of  the  complexity  of  the  situation  and  the 
inadequacy  of  the  data  as  a  basis  for  analysis,  it  appears  reasonable 
to  conclude:  (1)  that  wealth  of  community  is  a  factor  of  some 
weight;    (2)  that  date  of  construction  has  little  influence  until 

us 


recent  years  when  legislation  and  community  interest  together 
(probably  the  former  largely)  have  been  responsible  for  some  im- 
provement. These  three  factors :  education  of  the  community  to  a 
realization  of  the  need  for  better  buildings;  legislation  with  respect 
to  adequate  minimum  standards;  and  state  aid  may  now  be  con- 
sidered in  detail. 


B.    A  MORE  ENLIGHTENED  PUBLIC  OPINION  NEEDED 

The  writer  is  convinced  that  this  is  the  fundamental  cause  of  the 
present  situation.  If  citizens  demanded  proper  lighting,  heating, 
and  ventilation,  sanitary  toilet  conditions,  effective  methods  of 
cleaning,  playground  apparatus,  large  playgrounds,  etc.,  these 
would  come  into  more  general  existence  without  state  standards 
or  state  aid.  The  superintendents  consider  it  a  major  cause,  and 
the  analysis  of  data  presented  in  the  preceding  section  indicates 
that  it  has  weight.  There  are  progressive  individuals  in  every  com- 
munity, but  the  mass  as  yet  remain  unmoved  by  the  realization 
that  school  building  standards  have  made  great  forward  strides 
in  the  last  quarter  century. 

The  situation  is  readily  understandable  on  a  little  reflection. 
Approximately  two  out  of  every  three  school  buildings  in  the  state 
are  one-teacher  buildings.  Of  the  1,438  one-teacher  buildings 
studied,  only  6  have  a  score  of  900  or  above  as  indicating  a  reason- 
ably modern  plant.  As  the  farmer  drives  about  he  has  thus  about 
one  chance  in  240  of  seeing  a  building  that  will  impress  him  with 
the  inadequacy  of  the  one  in  his  home  district.  He  gives  little 
attention  to  the  larger  buildings  that  he  sees  for  the  reason  that  he 
considers  such  to  be  quite  beyond  attainment.  The  suggestion, 
then,  that  his  home  school  is  "as  good  as  the  rest  of  them"  is  too 
strong  to  be  resisted.  Were  he  to  meet  frequently  a  modern 
building  in  a  situation  similar  to  his,  he  would  undoubtedly  be 
stimulated  to  want  something  better  or  at  least  would  have  the 
disquieting  feeling  that  all  was  not  as  it  should  be.  The  fact  that 
the  farmer  has  in  most  cases  seen  this  same  building  all  his  life, 
that  he,  his  father,  and  sometimes  his  grandfather  (the  median  age 
of  one-teacher  buildings  is  51  years;  while  25  percent  of  them  are 

n6 


66  years  or  more  old),  attended  the  same  school  is  additional  reason 
for  his  complacency. 

The  responsibility  for  leadership  in  securing  a  wider  knowledge 
of  modern  building  standards  rests  primarily  in  the  State  Depart- 
ment of  Education.  The  citizens  of  New  York,  through  the  legis- 
lature, have  created  this  organization  because  they  have  believed 
in  education  as  a  preparation  for  citizenship  and  because  they  have 
felt  the  need  of  a  professional  group  to  study  the  educational  needs 
of  the  state,  to  enforce  minimum  standards  wherever  these  have 
been  provided,  and  above  all  to  become  the  leader  to  new  and  better 
things  in  education.  The  direct  agent  of  the  State  Department  in 
the  matter  of  the  school  plant  is  the  Division  of  Grounds  and 
Buildings. 

This  division  was  established  in  1915,  though  previous  to  that 
time  building  inspections  were  made  through  the  Inspections  Di- 
vision of  the  Department.  The  chief  functions  of  this  Division  of 
Grounds  and  Buildings  are:  (1)  Approval  of  plans  for  new  build- 
ings, for  remodeling  of  old  buildings,  and  for  additions  to  and  repairs 
on  present  structures  (where  the  cost  is  over  $500)  in  cities  of  the 
third  class,  villages,  and  rural  schools;  (2)  inspection  of  buildings 
that  are  unsafe  or  unsanitary;  (3)  inspection  of  buildings  under 
construction  where  this  seems  desirable;  and  (4)  certain  advisory, 
educational,  and  leadership  responsibilities,  including:  (a)  con- 
ferences with  school  officials;  (b)  attendance  upon  special  meetings 
called  to  vote  appropriations  for  improving  conditions  when  the 
local  authorities  so  request;  (c)  inspection  of  completed  buildings, 
also  upon  request,  preliminary  to  final  payment  of  contractor;  (d) 
adoption  of  measures  to  interest  communities  in  bettering  the 
school  plant. 

The  Division  employs  four  persons — a  chief,  an  inspector,  a  con- 
sulting architect,  and  a  stenographer.  With  the  exception  of  the 
architect,  added  in  1921,  the  force  has  been  of  this  size  since  the 
creation  of  the  Division. 

Activities  of  the  Division  of  an  inspectorial  and   educational 

nature  are  fairly  extensive.     During  the  past  year  (1920-21)  the 

inspector  attended  69  school  meetings,  held  169  conferences  with 

trustees  and  boards  of  education,  inspected  181  school  buildings, 

9  "7 


and  made  tests  of  the  heat  and  ventilation  in  26  new  buildings. 
He  estimates  that  in  approximately  65  percent  of  the  cases  the 
improvements  recommended  have  been  already  carried  out  in  full, 
in  15  percent  in  part,  while  in  20  percent  nothing  has  been  done. 
In  performing  his  duties  the  inspector  travels  approximately  31,000 
miles  a  year.  About  8,000  letters  were  written  by  the  Division  in 
1920-21.  The  Division  supplies  photostatic  prints  of  building  plans 
to  officials  who  request  them.  This  may  become  a  most  important 
service,  especially  to  the  poorer  districts  that  are  unable  to  employ 
an  architect.  Such  prints  have  been  prepared  for  15  types  of  one- 
room  buildings,  12  two-room,  2  three-room,  6  four-room,  and  a  few 
larger  buildings.  During  the  school  year  1919-20,  295  such  prints 
were  supplied;  during  1920-21,  401  were  furnished.  The  Division 
has  issued,  since  1911,  the  following  bulletins: 

Date  Title  No.  of 

copies 

Dec,     1911 Law   Pamphlet    1,  School   Bldgs.,   Sites  and 

School  Dist.  Bonds  4,850 

Aug.,    1912 11th  Dept.  Report  1915,  vol.  3,  School  Build- 
ings and  Grounds  5,000 

May,     1913 Specifications  for  plans  3  and  4  200 

March,  1917 Extract  from  vol.  3  of  10th  ann.  report  2,000 

May,     1917 Extract  from  vol.  3  of  11th  ann.  report — Toi- 
let Facilities  2,000 

June,    1919 Law  Pamphlet  1,  School  Bldgs.,  Sites  and  School 

Dist.  Bonds  2,000 

Oct.,     1919 Law,  Rules  and  Regulations  and  General  Infor- 
mation 1,000 

Feb.,     1919 Law,  Rules  and  Regulations  and  General  In- 
formation, Univ.  Bui.  720  1,500 

Total  18,550 

Partially  complete  records  in  the  office  of  the  Division  show  that 
plans  for  remodeling,  for  making  additions,  for  heating  and  ventila- 
tion, and  for  new  buildings  of  all  kinds  were  approved  as  follows: 
1915,  129;   1916,  108;   1917,  86;   1918,  55;   1919,  165;   1920,  126. 

Such  data  give  a  general  notion,  at  least,  of  the  activities  of  the 
Division.  It  is  clear  that  it  is  not  only  performing  its  inspectorial 
duties  so  far  as  size  of  staff  permits,  but  is  making  an  earnest  effort 
to  serve  the  people  of  the  state  in  other  ways. 

But  there  is  need  of  unusual  effort  if  school  building  facilities 

n8 


are  to  be  improved  within  a  reasonable  time.  The  dangers  in  a 
policy  of  state  coercion  were  shown  in  the  attempt  to  secure  sani- 
tary toilets  throughout  the  rural  schools.  Chief  dependence  must 
clearly  be  placed  upon  the  policy  of  bringing  the  farmers  themselves 
to  demand  improvement. 

The  first  step  in  such  a  program  will  naturally  be  the  securing  of 
facts  regarding  present  conditions.  The  state  should  make  a  survey 
from  time  to  time  of  certain  phases  of  good  housing,  though  the 
district  superintendent  is  in  a  particularly  strategic  position  both 
to  secure  the  facts  and  to  utilize  them  effectively.  He  may  make  a 
survey  of  all  or  part  of  the  schools  in  his  territory.  Such  a  survey 
should  be  comprehensive,  such  as  was  undertaken  in  this  study, 
covering  all  the  important  phases  of  a  school  plant,  when  the 
superintendent  wishes  to  arouse  the  people  to  a  realization  of  what 
they  now  have  as  compared  with  what  modern  hygienic  standards 
require.  The  survey  may  deal  with  one  or  two  phases  of  the  plant 
only — e.  g.,  toilets  and  blackboards — where  there  seems  little  hope 
of  getting  a  comprehensive  program  of  improvement  accepted  by 
the  constituency.  The  more  the  superintendent  can  throw  upon 
the  patrons  themselves  the  responsibility  for  securing  such  facts, 
even  though  they  may  not  have  scientific  accuracy,  the  more 
effective  his  program  is  likely  to  be.  Home  Bureaus,  Granges, 
Farm  Bureaus,  Parent-Teachers'  associations  may  be  utilized  for 
this  purpose. 

The  proper  use  of  such  facts  is  of  equal  importance.  Every 
legitimate  avenue  of  publicity  should  be  employed.  The  state  may 
publish  and  distribute  significant  facts  presented  in  an  attractive 
and  vivid  manner.  While  the  state  has  distributed  during  the 
last  10  years  pamphlets  to  the  number  of  18,550,  it  should  be  noted 
that  this  number  is  not  sufficient  to  meet  the  demand  that  ought  to 
exist  in  a  state  having  over  10,000  school  buildings  in  rural  sections, 
and  the  character  of  the  bulletin  is  usually  not  such  as  to  arouse 
interest  on  the  part  of  the  typical  educational  layman.  Most  of 
these  bulletins  contain  the  statutes  regarding  buildings,  the  rulings 
and  the  suggestions  of  the  Division,  together  with  a  rather  compre- 
hensive bibliography  on  building  standards.  Such  bulletins  are 
necessary  in  order  to  give  the  public  professional  information.    It 

119 


would  be  well,  however,  if  publications  of  a  more  popular  sort, 
giving  facts,  illustrations,  reasons  for  standards,  etc.,  were  made 
available  to  the  general  public.  One  of  the  publications  of  the  Divi- 
sion, that  for  August,  1912,  is  a  large  volume  of  440  9%"  x  12" 
pages,  containing  not  only  the  material  of  the  typical  smaller  bulle- 
tins, but  giving  besides  several  hundred  illustrations  of  buildings 
and  plans,  together  with  much  valuable  statistical  data  regarding 
sanitary  conditions,  costs,  number  of  buildings,  etc.  The  difficulty 
with  this  volume  is  that  it  is  too  cumbersome  and  costly  to  attain 
a  large  circulation.  Farm  and  local  papers,  weekly  or  monthly 
bulletins,  even  lantern  slides  and  moving  pictures  may  be  utilized 
by  local  leaders  to  spread  significant  facts  and  other  information 
regarding  conditions.  Some  of  these  methods  have  been  used  by 
the  Department  but  none  have  been  so  extensively  employed  as 
they  might.  All  this  publicity  should  result  in  discussion  within 
the  local  social  and  professional  organizations  of  means  and  methods 
of  securing  improvement.  It  is  an  unusual  citizen  indeed  who  will 
refuse  a  proper  school  home  to  children  when  he  really  understands 
conditions.  One  of  the  important  tasks  of  the  rural  school  leader 
is  to  collected  to  present,  tactfully  yet  persistently,  facts  that  will 
accomplish  this  result.  The  writer  has  confidence  that  such  a  pro- 
gram would,  within  a  few  years,  lead  the  majority  of  communities 
to  condemn  their  own  buildings.  This  state  as  well  as  others  can 
give  illustrations  where  persistent  leadership  has  had  exactly  this 
effect  (see  some  of  the  accompanying  photographs). 

Briefly,  then,  the  approach  to  this  whole  problem  should  be 
through  an  attempt  to  lead  the  community  to  demand  better  things 
rather  than  through  legislation.  In  this  way  there  may  be  built 
up  in  time  that  knowledge  and  that  interest  that  will  not  only  insure 
immediate  reforms,  but  will  provide  the  stimulus  for  constantly 
accelerated  progress  in  educational  affairs. 


i    jjM 

o  j>5 

.c-- 

"=<£ 

■a 

V         r 

eg 

£    3  w 

c 

,d 

3'Z! 

^4 
U 

a 

3 

"3   ° 

■"   O   3 

•a 

C   OT3 

2—   0 

> 

3  -  £ 

c 

III 

c. 

V  -w    0) 

•v 

^  a  — 
3-a- 

a 

c 

'5 

.E  E  c 

c 

•OJ3   0 

3 

o 

5  m  rt 

•^  .2  > 

bC 

c 

"§E 

3 

4J            0J 

J2 

O   c-S 

3 

u  «2 

03 

w  a 

"Ago 

'"■a  s* 
•oc" 

C   cu  JJ  >, 

O  „,        ■" 

•o£«c 

t,*"t-  3 

(s.t:  o  s 

?£  =  = 

*T  c  O  C 

3   C-~   0 

I   8  =   " 

a!  rt  °"Si 

>.  >>  a>  § 

-OX1-C  g 

tJ-o  c5 

'S   m—  <u 

Dh  2  3  c 

«  o  o 

0J 

2'glS 

"i  oi  U  >> 

■a 

-f  >  >■*  c 

<«  -*  a)  c 

o 

to  0_  « 

.rt 

•u  a  aj  ^ 

3«I   O 

00 

j2  SMC 

'jj 

o 

ajH-2 

*OT 

E    .  g^ 

w  C    ;    - 

S 

o  t-3: 

<u 

tjw  oj  — 

c  ^,  ™"° 

c 

V 

=    «.3    S 

3 

?cg-< 

c  K. 

S  .    cm 

£   >.3'- 

»;-  E  a 

<  =  3  = 

ESS- 

C.  HIGHER  AND  MORE  DEFINITE  MINIMUM 
STANDARDS 

But  we  should  not  rely  entirely  upon  popular  education  to  ac- 
complish these  results.  The  state  has  a  responsibility  regarding 
the  education  of  its  future  citizens,  and  in  meeting  the  responsibility 
it  should  and  does  set  standards  below  which  no  community  may 
be  permitted  to  fall. 

1.    The  Present  Situation 

An  analysis  of  such  requirements  in  New  York  reveals  an  inde- 
finite and  inconsistent  situation. 

(a)  In  1904  the  law x  provided  that  "  no  schoolhouse  shall  here- 
after be  erected,  repaired,  enlarged,  or  remodeled  in  a  city  of  the 
third  class  or  in  a  school  district,  at  an  expense  to  exceed  $500,  until 
the  plans  and  specifications  thereof  shall  have  been  submitted  to 
the  Commissioner  of  Education  and  his  approval  indorsed  thereon. 
Such  plans  and  specifications  must  show  in  detail  the  ventilation, 
heating  and  lighting  of  such  buildings."  Further  provision  is  made 
that  the  Commissioner  shall  not  approve  plans  except  when  the 
following  requirements  are  met: 

(1)  At  least  15  square  feet  of  floor  space  and  200  cubic  feet  of 
air  space  for  each  pupil  to  be  accommodated  in  each  study  and 
recitation  room. 

(2)  At  least  30  cubic  feet  of  pure  air  every  minute  per  pupil. 

(3)  The  facilities  for  exhausting  the  foul  or  vitiated  air  to  be 
positive  and  independent  of  atmospheric  changes. 

(4)  All  halls,  doors,  stairways,  seats,  passageways  and  aisles 
and  all  lighting  and  heating  appliances  and  apparatus  shall  be 
arranged  to  facilitate  egress  and  afford  adequate  protection  in 
cases  of  fire  or  accident. 

(5)  All  exit  doors  shall  open  outwardly,  and  shall,  if  double 
doors  are  used,  be  fastened  with  movable  bolts  operated  simul- 
taneously by  one  handle  from  the  inner  face  of  the  door. 

(6)  No  stairway  to  be  constructed  with  winding  steps;  no  door 
to  open  upon  a  flight  of  stairs  except  where  there  is  a  landing  at 
least  the  width  of  the  door. 

1  Education  Law,  1920,  sec.  451. 


(7)  All  school  buildings,  except  in  New  York  City,  having  more 
than  two  stories,  must  be  provided  with  fire  escapes  kept  available 
during  school  hours  and  free  from  obstruction. 

(b)  In  addition  to  the  above  the  so-called  Health  and  Decency 
Act  of  1887  required  the  trustees  in  school  districts  to  provide  "at 
least  two  suitable  and  convenient  water  closets  or  privies  for  each  of 
the  schools  under  their  charge,  which  shall  be  entirely  separated 
from  each  other  and  have  separate  means  of  access,  and  approaches 
thereto  separated  by  a  substantial  close  fence  not  less  than  seven 
feet  in  height.  It  shall  also  be  the  duty  of  the  trustees  to  keep 
such  out-buildings  in  a  clean  and  wholesome  condition."1  In  union 
free  school  districts  two  such  closets  are  to  be  provided  and  main- 
tained for  each  school.  Failure  "by  the  trustee  to  comply  with  the 
provisions  of  this  section  shall  be  sufficient  grounds  for  their  re- 
moval from  office  and  for  withholding  from  the  district  or  city  its 
share  of  the  public  funds  of  the  State." 

(c)  The  law  also  requires  that  a  United  States  flag  be  displayed 
upon  or  near  every  public  school  building  during  school  hours, 
and  at  such  other  times  as  the  school  authorities  may  direct.2 

(d)  The  district  superintendent  has  power  to  "make  an  order 
condemning  a  schoolhouse  if  he  finds  upon  examination  that  such 
schoolhouse  is  wholly  unfit  for  use  and  not  worth  repairing"3  (italics 
are  not  in  the  law).  When  such  decision  is  made  the  superintendent 
sends  the  order  to  the  trustee  of  the  district  and  a  copy  of  it  to  the 
Commissioner  of  Education.  This  order  is  to  state  the  sum  which 
the  superintendent  considers  necessary  to  erect  a  school  building 
suitable  to  the  needs  of  the  district.  When  the  order  is  received 
the  trustee  is  to  call  a  meeting  of  the  voters  of  his  district  to  consider 
the  question  of  a  new  building.  This  meeting  has  the  power  to 
pass  upon  such  questions  as  size  of  building  and  material  to  be 
used,  but  it  may  not  reduce  the  estimate  of  the  superintendent  by 
more  than  25  percent.  Should  the  district  vote  no  tax  within  30 
days  from  the  time  of  holding  the  first  meeting  to  consider  the 
question,  the  trustee  is  required  to  contract  for  the  building  of  a 
schoolhouse  and  to  levy  the  necessary  tax,  which  tax  shall  not  be 

1  Education  Law,  1921,  sec.  457.  2  Education  Law  1921,  sec.  710. 

3  Education  Law,  1921,  sec.  456. 


larger  than  that  estimated  by  the  superintendent  nor  smaller 
than  such  estimate  by  more  than  25  percent. 

The  law  also  confers  upon  the  district  superintendent  the  power 
"to  direct  the  trustees  of  any  district  to  make  any  alterations  or 
repairs  to  the  schoolhouse  or  out-buildings  which  shall,  in  his 
opinion,  be  necessary  for  the  health  or  comfort  of  the  pupils,"  but 
the  amount  of  such  alterations  is  not  to  exceed  $200  in  any  year. 
Likewise  the  superintendent  may  direct  the  trustee  to  make  any 
repairs  or  alterations  to  school  furniture  or  to  provide  new  furni- 
ture if  he  deems  the  present  furniture  is  insufficient  or  unfit  for 
use  and  not  worth  repairing.  Not  over  $100  per  year  may  be  in- 
volved in  such  an  order. 

In  brief  then  all  schools  must  meet  the  standard  of  toilets  and 
must  display  a  flag  ((b)  and  (c),  p.  122);  any  school  may  be 
condemned  by  the  district  superintendent  when  he  finds  it  "wholly 
unfit  for  use  and  not  worth  repairing,"  and  the  superintendent  may 
direct  alterations  or  repairs  to  the  building  not  exceeding  $200  per 
year  or  improvements  or  additions  to  the  furniture  not  exceeding 
$100  per  year.  In  cities  of  the  third  class  and  in  school  districts, 
new  schools  or  schools  being  remodeled  to  the  extent  of  $500  must 
meet  the  seven  requirements  stated  in  (a),  p.  121.  In  addition, 
the  Division  of  Grounds  and  Buildings  has  certain  other  require- 
ments and  suggestions  that  are  used  in  approving  plans.  In 
practice  these  requirements  and  suggestions  have  very  great  in- 
fluence in  the  approving  of  such  plans  as  come  to  the  State  Depart- 
ment and  doubtless  have  considerable  influence  in  educating  some 
communities  to  better  standards. 

Does  the  State  of  New  York  go  as  far  as  it  should  in  setting  those 
standards  that  will  provide  adequate  housing  for  its  future  citizens 
during  their  period  of  schooling?  The  answer  is  clear.  In  the  first 
place  the  authority  of  the  district  superintendent  to  condemn  a 
building  is  couched  in  most  unfortunate  language.  It  is  an  ex- 
tremely difficult  matter  to  say  when  a  building  is  "wholly  unfit  for 
use  and  not  worth  repairing."  A  building  could  violate  practically 
every  standard  commonly  accepted  for  school  buildings  and  still 
not  be  unfit  for  use.  Certainly  there  is  little  to  make  clear  to  the 
community  that  its  facilities  are  unsatisfactory  and  there  is  no 

123 


encouragement  for  the  superintendent  to  use  the  power  of  the  state 
where  a  community  has  shown  an  unwillingness  to  act  after  advice 
has  been  given.  While  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  exercise  of  such 
state  authority  will  be  relatively  infrequent,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
but  that  the  authority  to  so  act  should  be  unequivocal. 

Table  66. — Orders  for' Condemnation  and  Alterations  Issued,  1912-1921 1 


Year 

Condemna- 
tions 

Alterations 

Total 

Number 
Appealed 

Appeals 

Partly 

Sustained 

1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
192 12 

29 
19 
18 
5 
7 
8 
3 
5 
8 
2 

51 
34 
22 
18 
16 

0 
16 
18 
11 

4 

80 
53 
40 
23 
23 

8 
19 
23 
19 

6 

1 
0 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 

1 
1 

0 

1 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

0 

Total 

104 

190 

294 

8 

4 

The  effect  of  such  indefiniteness  is  reflected  in  the  small  number 
of  orders  for  condemnation  and  alteration  issued  from  1912-21. 
This  is  shown  in  Table  66.  It  must  be  understood  that  this  number 
does  not  show  the  total  number  of  buildings  that  have  been  im- 
proved, for  there  are  some  communities  that  have  acted  without 
receiving  official  orders  to  that  effect.  When  one  considers  the 
small  number  of  the  orders  that  were  appealed,  one  gets  additional 
evidence  that  the  situation  was  so  bad  as  to  be  indefensible  or 
that  when  the  issue  developed  the  progressive  element  of  the  com- 
munity was  able  to  dominate.  It  is  a  matter  of  considerable  sig- 
nificance in  connection  with  the  administration  of  the  law  to  learn 
that  none  of  the  appeals  were  sustained  by  the  Commissioner  and 

1  From  original  orders  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  Law  Division,  State  Depart- 
ment of  Education. 


2  Up  to  Sept.  15,  1921 


124 


that  in  those  cases  where  the  appeal  was  partially  sustained  it  was 
done  upon  some  basis  other  than  the  unfitness  of  the  building,  as, 
for  example,  the  cost  of  the  improvements,  and  opportunity  to 
repair  rather  than  rebuild. 

Table  67,  showing  the  distribution  of  orders  for  condemnations 
and  alterations,  is  interesting  as  showing  the  number  of  districts 
in  which  no  orders  have  been  issued  during  this  period  of  almost 
ten  years. 


Table  67.- 


-dlstribution  of  orders  for  condemnation  and  alterations 
Among  the  Supervisory  Districts,  1912-1921 


Number  of 
Orders  Issued 

Number  of 

Supervisory 

Districts 

Number  of 
Orders  Issued 

Number  of 

Supervisory 

Districts 

0 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

108 

40 

22 

11 

11 

4 

2 

1 

8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

3 
2 
0 
1 
0 
2 
0 
1 

Not  only  is  the  basis  for  condemnation  indefinite,  but  such 
standards  as  are  set  by  statute  are  quite  inadequate.  It  is  impor- 
tant to  have  the  several  standards  now  provided  specifically  for 
new  buildings,  but  many  others  are  needed.  To  set  down  spe- 
cifically what  these  standards  should  be  is  an  intricate  problem. 
We  can  doubtless  agree  that  a  good  school  plant  should  accomplish 
the  three  purposes  that  have  been  stated  before,  namely:  to  pro- 
vide those  facilities  that  will  make  provision  for — (1)  proper  intel- 
lectual development;  (2)  physical  development;  (3)  safeguarding 
health  and  morals.  But  science  has  not  fully  demonstrated  in 
many  cases  just  what  is  necessary  to  accomplish  these  purposes, 
so  that  in  lieu  of  such  scientific  standards  we  must  fall  back  upon 
experience  and  well-established  professional  knowledge.  Further- 
more, minimum  standards  must  always  be  more  or  less  a  matter  of 
expediency,  for  usually  a  state  cannot  enforce  standards  that  are 

125 


too  far  in  advance  of  actual  practice  and  hence  of  public  opinion. 
Standards  must,  therefore,  always  be  a  progressive  matter.  Recog- 
nizing these  difficulties,  the  writer  nevertheless  ventures  to  suggest 
that  the  State  of  New  York  should,  within  the  next  five  years,  hold 
for  approximately  the  standards  stated  below. 

2.   Proposed  Minimum  Standards  for  One-  and  Two-Teacher 

b  uildings 

Except  where  otherwise  stated,  the  specific  requirements  should 
be  approximately  those  given  in  the  standards  used  in  scoring  the 
buildings.  The  items  here  presented  are  numbered  to  correspond 
with  the  same  items  on  the  score  card,  and  the  values  assigned  are 
those  that  would  be  given  on  the  score  card. 

Items                                                              Credit  Value 
1 .  Size  of  class  room 40 

3.  Window  placement 35 

4.  Glass  area 30 

5.  Shades 15 

8.  Color  scheme 20 

9.  Blackboard  (composition  board  also  accepted) 30 

12a.Pupils'  desks 40 

13.  Seating  arrangement 25 

24.  Heat  and  ventilation , 70 

26.  Cleaning  system 20 

27.  Water  supply 60 

29.  Toilets  (evaluated  in  terms  of  result  rather  than  kind)  65 

32.  First  aid  outfit 10 

34.  Flag  and  pole 10 

39.  Condition  of  repair 30 

41.  Orientation 25 

43.  Size  of  grounds 25 

550 

To  these  550  points  of  the  score  card  might  well  be  added — 

36.  Material  of  construction 25 

37.  Foundation 15 

38.  Roof 20 

since  the  requirements  on  these  points  are  the  least  that  are  likely 
to  be  found.  This  makes  a  total  of  610  on  the  score  card.  It 
should  be  remembered,  however,  that  not  any  610  out  of  the 
1,000  points  would  satisfy  the  minimum  requirements,  but  only 
the  ones  indicated  above. 

126 


These,  then,  represent  the  writer's  judgment  as  to  the  least  that 
New  York  should  require  in  the  way  of  a  building  and  its  permanent 
equipment  in  order  to  insure  proper  facilities  for  the  pupil's  physi- 
cal, intellectual,  and  moral  development.  But  the  ordinary  com- 
munity should  not  be  satisfied  with  these:  it  should  aim  at  the 
1,000  points  of  essential  standard  credit,  while  a  really  progressive 
community  will  provide  those  facilities  that  will  justify  from  250 
to  300  points  of  additional  credit.  As  to  how  far  the  minimum 
standards  must  be  modified  on  grounds  of  feasibility  can  be  de- 
termined only  after  the  results  of  the  educational  campaign  are 
evidenced.  If  the  definite  statement  of  these  standards  is  post- 
poned for  a  period  of,  say,  two  years,  and  if  the  educational  cam- 
paign has  been  effectively  conducted,  very  little  modification  ought 
to  be  necessary. 

With  such  standards  we  have  then  met  the  serious  difficulties 
in  the  present  situation  so  far  as  they  are  due  to  state  standards: 
the  indefiniteness  regarding  the  standards  under  which  a  district 
superintendent  may  condemn  a  building  or  order  repairs  or  im- 
provements in  the  furniture;  the  lack  of  adequate  minimum  stan- 
dards for  new  or  remodeled  buildings  and  for  additions;  the  almost 
complete  lack  of  any  standards  for  buildings  that  do  not  come  under 
the  law  regarding  new  or  remodeled  buildings  and  yet  clearly  are 
not  in  the  class  that  would  justify  an  order  for  condemnation. 


D.    FINANCIAL  PENALTIES  AND  REWARDS 

The  enforcement  of  minimum  standards  will  be  easier  and 
progress  beyond  these  standards  will  come  more  rapidly  if  the 
community  has  a  financial  incentive.  If  failure  to  meet  minimum 
standards  is  met  by  a  considerable  reduction  of  state  funds  and  if 
progress  beyond  these  standards  means  more  funds  from  the  state, 
the  enforcement  of  the  minimum  standards  will  in  most  communi- 
ties be  automatic. 

1.    A  Suggestion  of  Procedure 
The  presentation  of  a  detailed  plan  for  financing  schoolhouses  is 
not  the  responsibility  of  this  Division  of  the  Survey  but  of  the 

127 


Division  of  Finance.    It  may  be  proper,  however,  to  point  out  here 
the  general  procedure  that  may  be  followed. 

(a)  Provision  should  be  made  that  no  community  will  fail  to 
meet  minimum  standards  regarding  the  school  plant  merely  because 
of  financial  inability.  Tables  56  to  60  show  that  there  are  some 
communities  with  comparatively  little  wealth  that  cannot  provide 
proper  facilities  without  an  unduly  high  tax  burden.  Such  com- 
munities should  receive  assistance  from  the  state.  Before  such  aid 
is  actually  paid  the  state  should  inspect  the  work  to  see  that  it 
conforms  to  the  specifications  of  the  contract. 

Any  sound  plan  for  state  assistance  will,  of  course,  be  based 
upon  the  development  of  all  phases  of  desirable  educational  results, 
not  upon  any  one.  Therefore  we  may  expect  the  state  to  safeguard 
its  funds  by  refusing  aid  for  buildings  to  small  schools  except  where 
these  are  necessary  because  of  topographical  conditions.  It  is 
unthinkable  that  the  state  of  New  York  would  adopt  a  financial 
policy  that  would  encourage  the  improvement  and  continuance  of 
all  the  one-teacher  schools  now  in  the  state. 

(b)  A  penalty  should  be  established  and  enforced  for  any  com- 
munity that  fails,  through  neglect,  to  provide  facilities  at  least  equal 
to  the  state  standards.  Though  the  state  now  has  authority  under 
section  457  (4)  to  withhold  public  funds  for  failure  to  provide 
satisfactory  toilets  as  defined  by  law  (see  Section  "C"  above), 
the  law  has  been  executed  in  only  9  cases  since  1911.  According  to 
Department  officials  it  has  been  the  policy  of  the  Department  to 
refrain  from  withholding  public  money  until  notice  has  been 
served  and  ample  opportunity  given  to  comply  with  the  require- 
ments. Such  warning  is,  of  course,  only  a  matter  of  fairness  to  the 
community,  but  in  view  of  the  toilet  situation,  as  revealed  by  the 
facts  collected  in  this  study  and  implied  in  the  sanitary  toilet  ordei 
of  1916,  it  is  doubtful  if  such  leniency,  evidenced  by  the  few  cases 
of  withholding  funds,  can  be  justified  in  the  interest  of  education. 
Unless  penalties  provided  by  law  are  enforced  strictty,  yet  with 
discrimination  and  justice,  they  might  as  well  not  exist.  It  is  clear 
also  that  if  the  use  of  a  penalty  on  buildings  is  to  accomplish  its 
purpose,  such  penalty  should  extend  to  all  minimum  standards, 
not  to  toilets  alone. 

128 


(c)  A  community  that  exceeds  the  minimum  standards  should 
receive  a  financial  reward.  A  plan  for  accomplishing  this  may  be 
found  in  Dr.  Updegraff 's  report  on  finance. 

2.   What  Would  It  Cost  to  Improve  a  Typical  One-Teacher 

Building? 

To  most  communities  this  is  an  important  question.  In  Table  68 
is  given  an  estimate  of  what  it  would  cost  to  improve  the  school 
for  which  data  are  given  on  pages  23  to  26  to  that  point  that  would — 
(1)  Meet  the  proposed  minimum  standards,  and  (2)  meet  the 
essential  standards  outlined  for  the  score  card.  The  figures  here 
given  are  based  upon  costs  for  the  autumn  of  1921.  They  have  been 
prepared  largely  by  Supt.  M.  G.  Nelson,  of  the  fifth  supervisory 
district  of  Delaware  Co.,  who  has  taken  local  conditions  into  ac- 
count. For  this  reason  variations  in  certain  items  are  to  be  ex- 
pected for  different  communities.  In  the  cost  assigned  each  facility 
added  there  has  been  included  the  labor  cost  of  installation. 

It  is  perhaps  unnecessary  to  say  that  in  a  community  where  there 
is  likely  to  develop  in  the  near  future  a  sentiment  for  consolidation 
no  large  sums  should  be  spent  on  improving  the  present  plant. 
Only  the  most  serious  difficulties  should  be  met.  It  is  clear  also 
that,  where  it  seems  wise  to  continue  indefinitely  the  present  small 
schools,  improvements  will  ordinarily  be  made  gradually.  What  is 
important  in  such  a  situation  is  that  the  community  decide  whether 
remodeling  the  present  plant  rather  than  rebuilding  would  be  most 
economical,  then  that  community  effort  be  directed  to  achieving 
the  ends  sought.  This  can  be  accomplished  only  by  persistent 
leadership  on  the  part  of  state  officials  and  district  superintendents. 

E.  SUMMARIZING  STATEMENT 

Thus  have  been  presented  what  this  investigation  has  shown  to 
be  the  three  fundamental  factors  in  the  New  York  school  building 
situation:  public  opinion ;  state  legislation;  financial  ability  of  the 
community.  These  factors  suggest  the  points  of  attack  in  securing 
better  conditions. 

The  approach  to  the  whole  problem  should  be  through  leading 

129 


Table  68. — Estimated  Cost  of  Improving  a  Typical  One-teacher  Building 


Item 


1.  Size  

2.  Shape 

3.  Window  placement.  .  .  . 

4.  Glass  area 

5.  Shades 

6.  Floor 

7.  Walls 

8.  Color  scheme 

9.  Inside  finish 

10.  Blackboard 

11.  Bulletin  board 

12a.  Desks — pupils' 

12b.  Desk — teachers' 

13.  Seating  arrangements .  . 

14.  Closet 

15.  Clock 

16.  Fuel  room 

17.  Cloak  room 

20.  Library 

24.  Heating  and  ventilation 

26.  Cleaning  system 

27.  Water  supply 

28.  Artificial  lighting 

29.  Toilets 

32.  First  aid  outfit 

33.  Mail  box 

34.  Flag  and  pole 

37.  Foundation 

38.  Roof 

39.  Condition  of  repair .... 

40.  Position  on  grounds  .  .  . 

41 .  Orientation 

43.  Size  of  grounds 

44.  Shape  of  grounds 

45.  Shape  and  drainage.  .  .  . 

46.  Condition 

47.  Fencing 

48.  Walks 

49.  Playground  apparatus. . 


50.  Environment 

51.  Accessibility. 

Total .... 


Needed  Improvements 


None. 

None. 

Labor  and  materials  for  secur- 
ing unilateral  lighting. 

Included  in  "3." 

New  shades. 

New. 

Replastering. 

Tinting. 

None. 

15  feet  of  3yi'  composition 
with   tray. 

15  feet  of  3%'  slate  board  with 
tray. 

Pine  covered  with  burlap. 

Repairs. 

New. 

Rearranging  seats. 

None. 

Desk  clock. 

Repairs. 

Room  connected  with  sanitary 
toilets. 

None. 

Room  heater  with  intake  and 
outlet. 

Thermometer. 

Oiling  floor. 

Bubbling  fountain. 

2  small  mirrors. 

Paper  towels  (per  year). 

Liquid  soap  and  container. 

2  Coleman  gas  lamps  (300  can- 
dle power  each). 

Sanitary  with  cloak  rooms  at- 
tached. 


None. 

Repairing. 

Slight  repairing. 

Repainting  inside  and  out. 

Siding  replaced. 

None. 

None. 

92  sq.  rds.  more  land. 

None. 

None. 

None. 

Woven  wire  field  fence 

Gravel. 

Swing. 

Teeter  board. 

Sand  pile. 

Horizontal  bar. 

Volley  ball  and  net. 

None. 

None. 


Estimated  Cost  to  Meet 


Proposed 
Minimum 
Standards 


148.00 

00 

18.00 


13.50 
19.50 


10.00 
3^00 


125.00 

.50 

2.00 

14.00 

io!oo 

2.50 


350.00 
3.50 

00 

8.00 

5.00 

55.00 

5.00 


$767.50 


13° 


the  people  themselves  to  see  the  need  for  better  things.  The  extent 
to  which  this  leadership  is  effective  will  indicate  how  far  it  will  be 
necessary  to  employ  legislation  in  securing  reasonable  attainments 
in  individual  communities.  Such  leadership  will  at  the  same  time 
determine  what  may  be  defined  as  "reasonable  attainments,"  for 
the  reason  that  legislation  on  this  matter  to  be  effective  must 
represent  an  expression  of  the  will  of  the  working  majority  as  to 
what  is  the  least  the  state  at  any  given  time  ought  to  require  for  the 
training  of  future  citizens.  Financial  penalties,  justly  administered, 
are  useful  in  securing  enforcement  in  backward  communities;  state 
assistance  to  the  financially  weak  makes  a  minimum  standard  fair; 
while  state  refunds  for  unusual  effort  reward  the  progressive  for 
providing  facilities  above  the  minimum  and  so  encourage  improve- 
ment. 

It  is  thus  apparent  that  these  are  interdependent  factors,  each 
tending  to  vivify  the  others.  In  seeking  improvement  this  fact 
should  not  be  overlooked.  Lack  of  more  complete  success  in  New 
York  has  been  due  largely  to  too  much  dependence  on  legislation — 
and  on  legislation  that  is  inadequate. 


131 


SURVEY  OF  NEW  YORK  STATE 
RURAL  SCHOOLS 

1  he  survey  was  organized  with  the  following  sections 
and  directors: 

Administration  and  Supervision.     C.  H.  Judd. 

School  Support.     Harlan  Updegraff . 

Teachers  and  Courses  of  Study.     W.  C.  Bagley. 

School  Buildings.     J.  E.  Butterworth. 

Measuring  the  Work  of  the  Schools.     M.  E.  Haggerty. 

Community  Relations.     Mabel  Carney. 

The  results  of  the  studies  conducted  by  these  directors 
and  their  associates  have  been  embodied  in  a  series  of 
reports.  The  approximate  dates  at  which  these  will  be 
available  for  distribution  are: 

Volume        I.  Rural  School  Survey  of  New  York  State. 

(Preliminary  Report)  May,  1922. 
Volume       II.  Administration  and  Supervision,  October,  1922. 

The  District  System.     Shelby. 

The  Supervisory  District.     Brooks. 

The  Community  Unit.     Works. 

Principles  of  Administration.     Bobbitt. 

The  State  System  of  Examinations.     Kruse. 

Health  Education.     Peterson. 

The  State  Schools  of  Agriculture.     Holton. 

Junior  Extension.     Holton. 

Summary  and  Recommendations.     Judd. 
Volume     III.  School  Support.    Updegraff.    August,  1922. 
Volume     IV.  Teachers    and    Teacher    Preparation.      Bagley. 
September,  1922. 

Elementary  School  Curriculum.    Brim. 

Community  Relations.    Carney. 
Volume       V.  School  Buildings.    Butterworth.    June,  1922. 
Volume      VI.  The  Educational  Product.    Haggerty.    July,  1922. 
Volume    VII.  The  Rural  High  Schools.     Ferriss.     August,  1922. 
(The  administrative  features  of  the  high  school 

were  studied  in  cooperation  with  Dr.  Judd,  while 

teachers  and  curricula  were  developed  under  the 

general  direction  of  Dr.  Bagley.) 
Volume  VIII.  Vocational  Education.    Eaton.    July,  1922. 

(Prepared  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Bagley.) 


These  volumes  may  be  obtained  at  seventy-five  cents  each,  post- 
paid, except  Volume  II,  on  Administration  and  Supervision,  which 
will  be  one  dollar.  Only  a  limited  edition  will  be  printed  and  those 
wishing  to  make  certain  of  securing  copies  may  place  their  orders  at 
any  time. 

Joint  Committee  on  Rural  Schools, 
Ithaca,  N.  Y. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


SOUTHERN  BRANCH 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIfS 

LIBRARY, 
**6  ArtaeLES,  CAMP, 


